Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix

REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES
SCREENING MATRIX AND

REFERENCE GUIDE
SECOND EDITION
October 1994
Prepared by the
DOD Environmental Technology

Transfer Committee
NOTICE
This document was prepared for the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD)
and other federal agencies participating in the Federal Remediation
Technology Roundtable (FRTR). Neither the DOD nor any other federal
agency thereof, nor any employees, makes any warranty, express or
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, produce, or
process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately
owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product,
process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise
does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation,
or favoring by the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. The views
and opinions of the authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or
reflect those of the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. Information
contained in this document was obtained from DOD and other federal
agencies directly involved in research, development, and demonstration of
cleanup technologies to meet the environmental restoration and waste
management needs of federal facilities.
U.S. government agencies and their contractors may reproduce this

document in whole or in part (in hardcopy or electronic form) for official
business. All other reproduction is prohibited without prior approval of
USAEC, SFIM-AEC-ETD, APG, MD 21010-5401. Additional copies
may be obtained from the National Technical Information Service, (703)
487-4650, NTIS PB95-104782.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.fm 10/31/00
ii
FOREWORD
The Environmental Technology Transfer Committee (ETTC) was

established in 1981 to facilitate the exchange of programmatic and
technical information involving remediation activities among DOD
services. The ETTC charter later expanded to include DOE and EPA
membership as well as environmental activities other than remediation.
The Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable (FRTR) was
established in 1991 as an interagency committee to exchange information
and provide a forum for joint action regarding the development and
demonstration of innovative technologies for hazardous waste
remediation.
One of the distinctive attributes of environmental technology is that the

state-of-the-art continually changes. Federal agencies have periodically
updated and published information on remediation technologies in an
effort to keep pace with these changes. However, government remedial
project managers (RPMs) must often sort through large volumes of
related and overlapping information to evaluate alternative technologies.
To assist the RPM in this process and to enhance technology transfer
among federal agencies, we developed this document to combine the
unique features of several agency publications into a single document. It
allows the RPM to pursue questions based on contamination problems as
well as specific technology issues depending on their need.
The selection and use of innovative technologies to clean up hazardous

waste sites is increasing rapidly, and new technologies are continuing to
emerge. Member agencies plan to issue periodic updates of this document
to help the RPM keep pace with the ever-changing range of technology
options available.
DANIEL F. UYESUGI WALTER W. KOVALICK, JR., Ph.D.

Colonel, U.S. Army Chairman, FRTR
Chairman, DOD ETTC Director
Commander U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Army Environmental Technology Innovation Office
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.fm 10/31/00
iii
Center
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.fm 10/31/00
iv
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for
Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.
1. AGENCY USE ONLY 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
October 1994 Final
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide, Second Edition DACA31-91-D-0079
Task Order 0009
6. AUTHOR(S)
Peter J. Marks, Walter J. Wujcik, Amy F. Loncar
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

Roy F. Weston, Inc. REPORT NUMBER
1 Weston Way
West Chester, PA 19380-1499 02281-012-009
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

U.S. Army Environmental Center AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
Attn: SFIM-AEC-ETD (Edward Engbert)
Building E4460, Beal Road SFIM-AEC-ET-CR-94065
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

U.S. government agencies and their contractors may reproduce this document in whole or in part (in hardcopy or electronic form) for official business. All
other reproduction is prohibited without prior approval of USAEC, SFIM-AEC-ETD, APG, MD 21010-5401.
12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Unclassified. Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited.
Additional copies may be obtained from the National Technical Information Service,
(703) 487-4650, NTIS PB95-104782.
13. ABSTRACT Under subcontract to the U.S. Army Environmental Center, Roy F. Weston, Inc. (WESTON®) has prepared the Remediation
Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide, Second Edition. The purpose of this document is to provide enough information to allow the
reader to use the guide, in combination with other references, to efficiently proceed from identifying a contaminated site toward communicating and
recommending suitable site remediation technologies to environmental regulators. The approach used to prepare this document was to review and
compile the unique features of several U.S. Government documents into one compendium document. Information on widely used and presumptive
remedies is provided in order to minimize the amount of remediation resources used in obtaining site charac-terization data and/or evaluating every
possible remedial alternative. Presumptive remedies are preferred technologies for common categories of sites established by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), based on historical patterns of remedy selection and EPA's scientific and engineering evaluation of performance data on
technology implementation. Commercially available innovative technologies are
14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES

Remediation, treatment, technology, soil, sediment, sludge, groundwater, surface 461 Text
water, leachate, volatile organic contaminants, semivolatile organic contaminants, 102 Appendices
explosives, metals, radionuclides, fuels, screening, alternatives, extraction,
16. PRICE CODE
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF
OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT ABSTRACT
Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Same as report
NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev 2-89)

Prescribed by ANSI Sta Z39-18
Z98-102
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.fm 10/31/00
v
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This reference is the product of a cooperative effort between the member agencies of the U.S.
Department of Defense Environmental Technology Transfer Committee (ETTC) and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR).
Roy F. Weston, Inc. (WESTON®) prepared the text under Army Contract DACA31-91-D-0079.
The Army contract project officer was Edward Engbert of the U.S. Army Environmental Center,
Environmental Technology Division. Dr. Walter Wujcik served as the WESTON Task Manager
and Amy Loncar as principal author.
The authors express special recognition and appreciation to the members of the ETTC subcommittee
responsible for providing guidance and coordinating review activities among their member agencies:
Col. James Owendoff of the Office of Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Environmental
Security; Edward Engbert of the Army Environmental Center; Frank Freestone of the Environmental
Protection Agency Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory; Robert Furlong and Brent Johnson of
the Headquarters Air Force Environmental Restoration Division; Joe Paladino of the Department of
Energy Office of Technology Development; and Jai Jeffery of the Naval Facilities Engineering
Service Center.
The following reviewers each contributed to the depth of this report through comments based on
their considerable expertise:
Mr. Mark Berscheid Mr. James E. Cook

California EPA Bureau of Mines
DTSC HQ-12 U.S. Dept. of the Interior
P.O. Box 806 810 7th St. NW
Sacramento, CA 95812-0806 Washington, DC 20241
Phone: 916/322-3294 Phone: 202/501-9293
FAX: 916/324-3107 FAX: 202/501-9957
Mr. Robert Elliot Mr. Edward Engbert
OO-ALC/EMR U.S. Army Environmental Center
Hill AFB Bldg. E-4430
7274 Wardleigh Road SFIM-AEC-ETD
Hill AFB, UT 84056-5137 APG, MD 21010-5401
Phone: 801/777-8790 Phone: 410/671-2054
FAX: 801/777-4306 FAX: 410/612-6836
Ms. Patricia Erickson Ms. Linda Fiedler
U.S. EPA U.S. EPA Technology Innovation Office
Andrew W. Breidenbach Environmental 401 M St., SW 5102W
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.fm 10/31/00
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Research Center Washington, DC 20460

26 W. Martin Luther King Drive Phone: 703/308-8799
Cincinnati OH 45268 FAX: 703/308-8528
Phone: 513/569-7884
FAX: 513/569-7676
Mr. Uwe Frank Mr. Frank Freestone
Superfund Technology Div. Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory 2890 Woodbridge Avenue
2890 Woodbridge Avenue Bldg. 10, MS 104
Edison, NJ 08837-3679 Edison, NJ 08837-3679
Phone: 908/321-6626 Phone: 908/321-6632
FAX: 908/906-6990 FAX: 908/321-6640
Mr. Robert Furlong Dr. John Griffith, Jr.
HQ USAF/CEVR McNeese State University
1260 Air Force Dept. of Chemical & Electrical Engineering
Pentagon Room 5D376 P.O. Box 91735
Washington, DC 20330-1260 Lake Charles, LA 70609
Phone: 703/697-3445 Phone: 318/475-5865
FAX: 703/697-3592 FAX: 318/475-5286
Mr. Douglass Grosse Mr. Patrick Haas
U.S. EPA AFCEE/EST
Andrew W. Breidenbach Environmental 8001 Arnold Drive
Research Center Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5357
26 W. M.L. King Drive Phone: 210/536-4314
Cincinnati, OH 45268 FAX: 210/536-4339
Phone: 513/569-7844
FAX: 513/569-7676
Mr. Mark Hampton Mr. Jai Jeffery
U.S. Army Environmental Center Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
Bldg. E-4430 560 Center Drive
SFIM-AEC-ETD Bldg. 835, Code 414.JJ
APG, MD 21010-5401 Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4328
Phone: 410/671-2054 Phone: 805/982-3020
FAX: 410/612-6836 FAX: 805/982-4304
Mr. Brent Johnson Mr. William Judkins
HQ USAF/CERV U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Command
1260 Air Force Environmental Quality Division
Pentagon Room 5D376 200 Stovall St., Code 181A
Washington, DC 20330-1260 Alexandria, VA 22332-2300
Phone: 703/697-3445 Phone: 703/325-2128
FAX: 703/697-3592 FAX: 703/325-0183
Mr. John Kingscott Lt. Col. Robert La Poe
U.S. EPA Technology Innovation Office AL/EQW-OL
401 M Street, SW 5102W 139 Barnes Drive, Suite 2
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.fm 10/31/00
vii
Washington, DC 20460 Tyndall AFB, FL 32403

Phone: 703/308-8749 Phone: 904/283-6244
FAX: 703/308-8528 FAX: 904/283-6286
Mr. Dennis Miller Lt. Col. Ross Miller
Idaho National Environmental Laboratory Brooks AFB
Office of Technology Development Attn: AFCEE/RST
ERCWM, U.S. DOE HQ 8001 Arnold Drive
1000 Independence Ave Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5357
Washington, DC 20585 Phone: 210/536-4331
Phone: 202/586-3022 FAX: 210/536-4339
FAX: 202/586-6773
Ms. Laurel Muehlhausen Mr. Craig Olson
Naval Facilities Engineering Serv. Ctr. 560 U.S. Army Engineering District - Omaha
Center Drive Attn: CEMRO-MD-HF
Bldg. 835, Code 414-J 215 N 17th Street
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4328 Omaha, NE 68102-4978
Phone: 805/982-3020 Phone: 402/221-7711
FAX: 805/982-4304 FAX: 402/221-7838
Col. James Owendoff Mr. Joe Paladino
Office of Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Office of Technology Development
(Environmental Security) HQ DOE
Pentagon Room 3C767 TREVION II, EM-521
Washington, DC 20301-3400 Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 703/697-9793 Phone: 301/903-7449
FAX: 703/695-4981 FAX: 301/903-7238
Mr. Paul dePercin Mr. Daniel Powell
U.S. EPA U.S. EPA Technology Innovation Office
Andrew W. Breidenbach Environmental 401 M St. SW 5102W
Research Center Washington, DC 20460
26 W. M.L. King Drive Phone: 703/308-8827
Cincinnati, OH 45268 FAX: 703/308-8528
Phone: 513/569-7797
FAX: 513/569-7676
Mr. John Quander Ms. Mary Ann Ray
U.S. EPA Technology Innovation Office U.S. Army Environmental Center
401 M St. SW 5102W Bldg. E-4435
Washington, DC 20460 SFIM-AEC-ETD
Phone: 703/308-8845 APG, MD 21010-5401
FAX: 703/308-8528
Dr. Steve Safferman Ms. Laurel Staley
U.S. EPA U.S. EPA
Andrew W. Breidenbach Environmental Andrew W. Breidenbach Environmental
Research Laboratory Research Center
Cincinnati, OH 45268 26 M.L. King Drive
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.fm 10/31/00
viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Phone: 513/569-7519 Cincinnati, OH 45268

FAX: 513/569-7676 Phone: 513/569-7884
FAX: 513/569-7676
Mr. Richard Scalf Ms. Mary Stinson
U.S. EPA Superfund Technology Demonstration Division
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Center 2890 Woodbridge Ave.
P.O. Box 1198 Edison, NJ 08837-3679
Ada, OK 74820 Phone: 908/321-6683
Phone: 405/436-8580 FAX: 908/906-6990
FAX: 405/436-8582
Mr. Wayne Sisk Dr. James Stumbar
U.S. Army Environmental Center Foster Wheeler Environmental Services
Bldg. E-4430 Raritan Plaza I - 2nd Floor
SFIM-AEC-ETD Edison, NJ 08837-2259
APG, MD 21010-5401 Phone: 908/417-2269
Phone: 410/671-2054 FAX: 908/417-2259
FAX: 410/612-6836
Mr. Ted Streckfuss Mr. Newell Trask
U.S. Army Engineering District-Omaha Branch of Nuclear Waste Hydrology
Attn: CEMRO-ED-DK U.S. Geological Survey, WRD
215 N 17th St. 411 National Center
Omaha, NE 68102-4978 Reston, VA 22092
Phone: 402/221-3826 Phone: 703/648-5719
FAX: 402/221-3842 FAX: 703/648-5295
Mr. Daniel Sullivan Mr. Michael Worsham
Superfund Technology Demo. Div. U.S. Army Environmental Center
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory Bldg. E-4430
2890 Woodbridge Avenue SFIM-AEC-ETD
Edison, NJ 08837-3679 APG, MD 21010-5401
Phone: 908/321-6677 Phone: 410/671-2054
FAX: 908/906-6990 FAX: 410/612-6836
Mr. Dave Van Pelt
BDM Federal, Inc.
555 Quince Orchard Road, Suite 400
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
Phone: 301/212-6268
FAX: 301/212-6250
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.fm 10/31/00
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title Page
Notice ...........................................................................................................................ii
Foreword .....................................................................................................................iii
Report Documentation Page ......................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgment........................................................................................................... v
Table of Contents.........................................................................................................ix
List of Figures............................................................................................................xiii
List of Tables............................................................................................................ xvii
List of Acronyms ....................................................................................................... xix
1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Objectives ........................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Background ......................................................................................................1-2
1.3 How To Use This Document.............................................................................1-3
1.4 Requirements To Consider Technology's Impact on Natural Resources..............1-7
1.5 Cautionary Notes..............................................................................................1-8
1.6 Mail-In Survey .................................................................................................1-8
2 CONTAMINANT PERSPECTIVES ......................................................................2-1
2.1 Presumptive Remedies....................................................................................2-2

2.2 Data Requirements .........................................................................................2-3
2.2.1 Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge ..............................2-3
2.2.2 Data Requirements for Groundwater, Surface Water, and
Leachate ............................................................................................2-6
2.2.3 Data Requirements for Air Emissions/Off-Gases.................................2-7
2.3 Volatile Organic Compounds..........................................................................2-8
2.3.1 Properties and Behavior of VOCs .....................................................2-10
2.3.2 Common Treatment Technologies for VOCs in Soil, Sediment,
and Sludge .......................................................................................2-11
2.3.3 Common Treatment Technologies for VOCs in Groundwater,
Surface Water, and Leachate ............................................................2-12
2.3.4 Common Treatment Technologies for VOCs in Air Emissions/
Off-Gases ........................................................................................2-13
2.4 Semivolatile Organic Compounds.................................................................2-14
2.4.1 Properties and Behavior of SVOCs...................................................2-16
2.4.2 Common Treatment Technologies for SVOCs in Soil, Sediment,
and Sludge .......................................................................................2-19
2.4.3 Common Treatment Technologies for SVOCs in Groundwater,
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.fm 10/31/00
x
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title Page
2.5 Fuels..............................................................................................................2-21
2.5.1 Properties and Behavior of Fuels ......................................................2-23
2.5.2 Common Treatment Technologies for Fuels in Soil, Sediment,
and Sludge .......................................................................................2-24
2.5.3 Common Treatment Technologies for Fuels in Groundwater,
2.6 Inorganics .....................................................................................................2-27
2.6.1 Properties and Behavior of Inorganics...............................................2-29
2.6.2 Common Treatment Technologies for Inorganics in Soil,
Sediment, and Sludge .......................................................................2-32
2.6.3 Common Treatment Technologies for Inorganics in Groundwater,
2.7 Explosives .....................................................................................................2-34
2.7.1 Properties and Behavior of Explosives ..............................................2-36
2.7.2 Common Treatment Technologies for Explosives in Soil,
Sediment, and Sludge .......................................................................2-37
2.7.3 Common Treatment Technologies for Explosives in Groundwater,
3 TREATMENT PERSPECTIVES ...........................................................................3-1
3.1 In Situ Biological Treatment for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge ............................3-11
3.2 In Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge ...............3-17
3.3 In Situ Thermal Treatment for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge...............................3-25
3.4 Ex Situ Biological Treatment for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge...........................3-29
3.5 Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge ..............3-36
3.6 Ex Situ Thermal Treatment for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge..............................3-48
3.7 Other Treatment Technologies for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge .........................3-54
3.8 In Situ Biological Treatment for Groundwater, Surface Water,
and Leachate ..................................................................................................3-58
3.9 In Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment for Groundwater, Surface
Water, and Leachate .....................................................................................3-64
3.10 Ex Situ Biological Treatment for Groundwater, Surface Water,
and Leachate ..................................................................................................3-66
3.11 Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment for Groundwater, Surface
Water, and Leachate .......................................................................................3-71
3.12 Other Treatment Technologies for Groundwater, Surface Water,
and Leachate ..................................................................................................3-76
3.13 Air Emissions/Off-Gas Treatment...................................................................3-79
4 TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY PROFILES ........................................................4-1
Soil, Sediment, and Sludge Treatment Technologies

4.1 Biodegradation (In Situ)....................................................................................4-1
4.2 Bioventing ........................................................................................................4-5
4.3 White Rot Fungus...........................................................................................4-11
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.fm 10/31/00
xi
4.4 Pneumatic Fracturing......................................................................................4-15
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.fm 10/31/00
xii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title Page
4.5 Soil Flushing ..................................................................................................4-19

4.6 Soil Vapor Extraction (In Situ) .......................................................................4-23
4.7 Solidification/Stabilization (In Situ) ................................................................4-27
4.8 Thermally Enhanced Soil Vapor Extraction.....................................................4-31
4.9 In Situ Vitrification.........................................................................................4-35
4.10 Composting ....................................................................................................4-39
4.11 Controlled Solid Phase Biological Treatment...................................................4-43
4.12 Landfarming...................................................................................................4-47
4.13 Slurry Phase Biological Treatment ..................................................................4-51
4.14 Chemical Reduction/Oxidation........................................................................4-55
4.15 Dehalogenation (Base-Catalyzed Decomposition) ............................................4-59
4.16 Dehalogenation (Glycolate).............................................................................4-63
4.17 Soil Washing ..................................................................................................4-67
4.18 Soil Vapor Extraction (Ex Situ) ......................................................................4-73
4.19 Solidification/Stabilization (Ex Situ) ...............................................................4-77
4.20 Solvent Extraction ..........................................................................................4-81
4.21 High Temperature Thermal Desorption ...........................................................4-85
4.22 Hot Gas Decontamination ...............................................................................4-89
4.23 Incineration ....................................................................................................4-93
4.24 Low Temperature Thermal Desorption............................................................4-97
4.25 Open Burn/Open Detonation.........................................................................4-101
4.26 Pyrolysis ......................................................................................................4-105
4.27 Vitrification (Ex Situ)...................................................................................4-109
4.28 Excavation, Retrieval, and Off-Site Disposal.................................................4-113
4.29 Natural Attenuation ......................................................................................4-117
Groundwater, Surface Water, and Leachate Treatment Technologies

4.30 Co-Metabolic Processes................................................................................4-121
4.31 Nitrate Enhancement.....................................................................................4-125
4.32 Oxygen Enhancement with Air Sparging .......................................................4-129
4.33 Oxygen Enhancement with Hydrogen Peroxide..............................................4-133
4.34 Air Sparging.................................................................................................4-137
4.35 Directional Wells..........................................................................................4-141
4.36 Dual Phase Extraction ..................................................................................4-145
4.37 Free Product Recovery..................................................................................4-149
4.38 Hot Water or Steam Flushing/Stripping ........................................................4-153
4.39 Hydrofracturing............................................................................................4-157
4.40 Passive Treatment Walls...............................................................................4-161
4.41 Slurry Walls.................................................................................................4-165
4.42 Vacuum Vapor Extraction ............................................................................4-169
4.43 Bioreactors...................................................................................................4-173
4.44 Air Stripping ................................................................................................4-177
4.45 Filtration ......................................................................................................4-181
4.46 Ion Exchange................................................................................................4-185
4.47 Liquid Phase Carbon Adsorption ..................................................................4-189
4.48 Precipitation .................................................................................................4-193
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.fm 10/31/00
xiii
4.49 Ultraviolet Oxidation ....................................................................................4-197
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.fm 10/31/00
xiv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title Page
4.50 Natural Attenuation ......................................................................................4-201
Air Emissions/Off-Gas Treatment Technologies

4.51 Biofiltration..................................................................................................4-207
4.52 High Energy Corona .....................................................................................4-211
4.53 Membrane Separation...................................................................................4-215
4.54 Oxidation .....................................................................................................4-219
4.55 Vapor-Phase Carbon Adsorption...................................................................4-223
5 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................5-1
5.1 Document Sources............................................................................................5-1

5.2 Listing by Topic ...............................................................................................5-5
5.2.1 International Surveys and Conferences................................................5-5
5.2.2 Technology Survey Reports................................................................5-6
5.2.3 Treatability Studies (General)...........................................................5-11
5.2.4 Groundwater ....................................................................................5-12
5.2.5 Thermal Processes............................................................................5-13
5.2.6 Biological.........................................................................................5-15
5.2.7 Physical/Chemical ............................................................................5-29
5.2.8 Community Relations .......................................................................5-38
5.3 Listing by Author ...........................................................................................5-41
6 INDEX .....................................................................................................................6-1
APPENDIX A — VENDOR INFORMATION SYSTEM FOR INNOVATIVE

TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES (VISITT)
APPENDIX B — DOE SITE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES BY WASTE

CONTAMINANT MATRIX AND COMPLETED SITE
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM PROJECTS AS OF OCTOBER 1993
APPENDIX C — FEDERAL DATA BASES AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

SOURCES
APPENDIX D — FACTORS AFFECTING TREATMENT COST AND PERFORMANCE
APPENDIX E — DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE DOCUMENTS
ATTACHMENT 1 — TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES SCREENING MATRIX
ATTACHMENT 2 — REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION AND COST
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.fm 10/31/00
xv
GUIDE
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title Page
1-1 Reduction of Data Needs by Screening and Presumptive Remedies..........................1-1
1-2 The Role of This Document in the RI/FS Process (or Equivalent)............................1-4
2-1 Categories of Energetic Materials .........................................................................2-36
3-1 Classification of Remedial Technologies by Function ..............................................3-2
4-1 Typical In Situ Biodegradation System ...................................................................4-1
4-2 Typical Bioventing System .....................................................................................4-5
4-3 Typical White Rot Fungus Biodegradation Process ...............................................4-11
4-4 Typical Pneumatic Fracturing Process ..................................................................4-15
4-5 Typical Soil Flushing System ...............................................................................4-19
4-6 Typical In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction System.......................................................4-23
4-7 Typical Auger/Caisson and Reagent/Injector Head In Situ .......................................... Solidification
4-8 Typical Thermally Enhanced SVE System ............................................................4-31
4-9 Typical In Situ Vitrification System......................................................................4-35
4-10 Typical Windrow Composting Process .................................................................4-39
4-11 Typical Controlled Treatment Unit for Solid-Phase Bioremediation .......................4-43
4-12 Typical Landfarming Treatment Unit....................................................................4-47
4-13 Typical Bioreactor Process...................................................................................4-51
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.fm 10/31/00
xvi
LIST OF FIGURES
4-14 Typical Chemical Reduction/Oxidation Process ....................................................4-55
4-15 Typical BCD Dehalogenation Process ..................................................................4-59
4-16 Typical Dehalogenation (Glycolate) Process .........................................................4-63
4-17 Typical Soil Washing Process ..............................................................................4-67
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.fm 10/31/00
xvii
4-18 Typical Ex Situ SVE System................................................................................4-73
4-19 Typical Ex Situ Solidification/Stabilization Process Flow Diagram .......................4-77
4-20 Typical Solvent Extraction Process.......................................................................4-81
4-21 Typical High Temperature Thermal Desorption Process........................................4-85
4-22 Process Flow Diagram for Hot Gas Decontaminating of Explosives-

Contaminated Equipment......................................................................................4-89
4-23 Typical Mobile/Transportable Incineration Process...............................................4-93
4-24 Typical Schematic Diagram of Thermal Desorption Process .................................4-97
4-25 Typical Open Burning Pan and Cage ..................................................................4-101
4-26 Typical Pyrolysis Process...................................................................................4-105
4-27 Typical Ex Situ Vitrification Block Flow Process ...............................................4-109
4-28 Typical Contaminated Soil Excavation Diagram .................................................4-113
4-29 Typical Monitoring Well Construction Diagram .................................................4-117
4-30 Typical Co-Metabolic Bioremediation System (In Situ) for Contaminated

Groundwater ......................................................................................................4-121
4-31 Typical Nitrate-Enhanced Bioremediation System ..............................................4-125
4-32 Typical Oxygen-Enhanced Bioremediation System for Contaminated

Groundwater with Air Sparging..........................................................................4-129
4-33 Oxygen-Enhanced (H2O2) Bioremediation System ..............................................4-133
4-34 Typical Air Sparging System .............................................................................4-137
4-35 Typical Diagram of In Situ Air Stripping with Horizontal Wells .........................4-141
4-36 Typical Dual Phase Extraction Schematic...........................................................4-145
4-37 Typical Free Product Recovery Dual Pump System ............................................4-149
4-38 CROW? Subsurface Development Process........................................................4-153
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.fm 10/31/00
xviii
LIST OF FIGURES
4-39 Typical Sequence of Operations for Creating Hydraulic Fractures.......................4-157
4-40 Typical Passive Treatment Wall (Cross-Section).................................................4-161
4-41 Typical Keyed-In Slurry Wall (Cross-Section)....................................................4-165
4-42 Typical UVB Vacuum Vapor Extraction Diagram ..............................................4-169
4-43 Typical Rotating Biological Contractor (RBC) ...................................................4-173
4-44 Typical Air Stripping System .............................................................................4-177
4-45 Typical Schematic for Filtration of Contaminated Groundwater ..........................4-181
4-46 Typical Ion Exchange and Adsorption Equipment Diagram.................................4-185
4-47 Typical Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorption System....................................................4-189
4-48 Typical Metals Precipitation Process ..................................................................4-193
4-49 Typical UV/Oxidation Groundwater Treatment System.......................................4-197
4-50 Typical Monitoring Well Construction Diagram .................................................4-201
4-51 Typical Methanotrophic Biofilm Reactor Diagram..............................................4-207
4-52 Typical Low Temperature Plasma Reactor .........................................................4-211
4-53 Typical Membrane Separation Diagram..............................................................4-215
4-54 Typical Oxidation System ..................................................................................4-219
4-55 Typical Vapor-Phase Carbon Adsorption System................................................4-223
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.fm 10/31/00
xix
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.fm 10/31/00
xx
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page
1-1 U.S. Government Remediation Technology Reports Incorporated into

This Guide .............................................................................................................1-3
2-1 Treatment Technologies Screening Matrix: Treatment of Volatile Organic Compounds2-9
2-2 Treatment Technologies Screening Matrix: Treatment of Semivolatile

Organic Compounds.............................................................................................2-15
2-3 Treatment Technologies Screening Matrix: Treatment of Fuels ............................2-22
2-4 Treatment Technologies Screening Matrix: Treatment of Inorganics.....................2-28
2-5 Treatment Technologies Screening Matrix: Treatment of Explosives ....................2-35
3-1 Definition of Symbols Used in the Treatment Technologies Screening

Matrix ...................................................................................................................3-4
3-2 Treatment Technologies Screening Matrix ..............................................................3-5
3-3 Definition of Matrix Treatment Technologies..........................................................3-6
3-4 Completed Projects: In Situ Biological Treatment for Soil, Sediment,

and Sludge ...........................................................................................................3-14
3-5 Completed Projects: In Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment for Soil, Sediment,

and Sludge ...........................................................................................................3-18
3-6 Completed Projects: In Situ Thermal Treatment for Soil, Sediment,

and Sludge ...........................................................................................................3-26
3-7 Completed Projects: Ex Situ Biological Treatment for Soil, Sediment,

and Sludge ...........................................................................................................3-32
3-8 Completed Projects: Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment for Soil,

Sediment, and Sludge ...........................................................................................3-37
3-9 Completed Projects: Ex Situ Thermal Treatment for Soil, Sediment,

and Sludge ...........................................................................................................3-49
3-10 Completed Projects: Other Treatments for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge..................3-55
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.fm 10/31/00
xxi
Table No. Title Page
3-11 Completed Projects: In Situ Biological Treatment for Groundwater,

Surface Water, and Leachate ................................................................................3-61
3-12 Completed Projects: In Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment for Groundwater,

3-13 Completed Projects: Ex Situ Biological Treatment for Groundwater,

3-14 Completed Projects: Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment for Groundwater,

3-15 Completed Projects: Other Treatments for Groundwater, Surface Water,

and Leachate ........................................................................................................3-77
3-16 Completed Projects: Air Emissions/Off-Gas Treatment ........................................3-80
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.fm 10/31/00
xxii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AFB U.S. Air Force Base

AIChE American Institute of Chemical Engineers
ALARA As Low As Reasonably Achievable
APA Air Pathway Analysis
APEG Alkaline Polyethylene Glycolate
APG Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland
AST Aboveground Storage Tank
AWMA Air and Waste Management Association
AWWA American Water Works Association
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene
CAA Clean Air Act
CEC Cation Exchange Capacity
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (also
known as Superfund)
CERL U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
CROW Contained Recovery of Oily Waste
CRREL U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory
CWA Clean Water Act
DNAPL Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
DOD U.S. Department of Defense
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
DOI U.S. Department of the Interior
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
DRE Destruction and Removal Efficiency
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERD Environmental Restoration Division
ERL Environmental Research Laboratory
ETTC DOD Environmental Technology Transfer Committee
FRTR Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
FS Feasibility Study
GAC Granular-Activated Carbon
HEC High Energy Corona
HLRW High Level Radioactive Waste
HMCRI Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute
HTTD High Temperature Thermal Desorption
HWAC Hazardous Waste Action Council
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.fm 10/31/00
xxiii
IR Installation Restoration
IRHWCT Installation Restoration and Hazardous Waste Control Technologies
ISEE In Situ Steam-Enhanced Extraction
ISV In Situ Vitrification
KPEG Potassium Polyethylene Glycolate
LDR Land Disposal Restriction
LLRW Low Level Radioactive Waste
LNAPL Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
LTTD Low Temperature Thermal Description
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MRD U.S. Army Missouri River Division
NAPL Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
NAS Naval Air Station
NCA Noise Control Act
NCEL Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, now NFESC
NCP National Contingency Plan
NEESA Navy Energy and Environmental Support Activity, now NFESC
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NFESC Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL National Priority List
NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NWS Naval Weapons Station
O&M Operations and Maintenance
OB/OD Open Burn/Open Detonation
ODW EPA Office of Drinking Water
OERR EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
ORD EPA Office of Research and Development
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
OSW EPA Office of Solid Waste
OSWER EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PACT Powdered-Activated Carbon Technology
PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PCP Pentachlorophenol
PEP Propellants, Explosives, and Pyrotechnics
POC Point of Contact
POL Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants
R&D Research and Development
RBC Rotating Biological Contactor
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRIS Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.fm 10/31/00
xxiv
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ROD Record of Decision

RPM Remedial Project Manager
RREL EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
RSKERL EPA's Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
scfm Standard Cubic Feet per Minute
SERP Steam-Enhanced Recovery Process
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
SIVE Steam Injection and Vacuum Extraction
SNF Spent Nuclear Fuel
SVE Soil Vapor Extraction
SVOC Semivolatile Organic Compound
TCE Trichlorethylene
TCLP EPA Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TI Technical Impracticability
TOC Total Organic Carbon
TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TRU Transuranic Waste
TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USAEC U.S. Army Environmental Center
USAE-WES U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station
USAF U.S. Air Force
USACERL See CERL
USACRREL See CRREL
USAMC U.S. Army Materiel Command
USN U.S. Navy
USATHAMA U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Material Agency, now USAEC
UST Underground Storage Tank
UV Ultraviolet
UXO Unexploded Ordnance
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
WESTON Roy F. Weston, Inc.
3
yd Cubic Yards
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.fm 10/31/00
xxv
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.fm 10/31/00
xxii
Section 1
INTRODUCTION
? 1.1 OBJECTIVES
The goal of remedial investigation/feasibility studies (RI/FS) and hazardous waste

cleanup projects is to obtain enough information on th site to consider and select
practicable remedial alternatives. Gathering this information can require
considerable time, effort, and finances. In some cases, it is possible to focus on
specific remedies that have been proven under similar conditions.
FIGURE 1-1 REDUCTION OF DATA NEEDS BY SCREENING AND PRESUMPTIVE

REMEDIES
This guide is intended to be used to screen and evaluate candidate cleanup
technologies for contaminated installations and waste sites in order to assist
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s1 10/31/00
1-1
remedial project managers (RPMs) in selecting a remedial alternative. To reduce

data collection efforts and to focus the remedial evaluation steps, information on
widely used and presumptive remedies is provided. Figure 1-1 illustrates the trend
toward reduction in the degree of site characterization through screening and the use
of presumptive remedies.
Presumptive remedies, as established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), are preferred technologies for common categories of sites, based on
historical patterns of remedy selection and EPA's scientific and engineering
evaluation of performance data on technology implementation. Use of presumptive
remedies will allow a RPM to focus on one or two alternatives: decreasing the site
characterization data needs and focusing the remedial evaluation steps, resulting in
less time and effort. Conversely, sites with extensive data needs will require a more
thorough characterization and evaluation of many remedial alternatives.
The unique approach used to prepare this guide was to review and compile the
collective efforts of several U.S. Government agencies into one compendium
document. For each of several high-frequency of occurrence types of sites, the
guide enables the reader to:
· Screen for possible treatment technologies.
· Distinguish between emerging and mature technologies.
· Assign a relative probability of success based on available performance data,

field use, and engineering judgment.
This guide allows the reader to gather essential descriptive information on the
respective treatment technologies. It incorporates cost and performance data to the
maximum extent available and focuses primarily on demonstrated technologies;
however, emerging technologies may be more appropriate in some cases, based
upon site conditions and requirements. The final selection of a technology usually
requires site-specific treatability studies. As more is learned about developing
technologies, this guide will be updated accordingly. These technologies are
applicable at all types of site cleanups: Superfund, DOD, DOE, RCRA, state,
private, etc.
A primary audience for this document is RPMs and their supporting contractors and
consultants. This audience also includes the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD)
installation commanders, environmental coordinators, trainers at DOD and federal
installations, agencies, researchers, Congressional staffers, public interest groups,
and private sector consultants.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s1 10/31/00
1-2
INTRODUCTION
? 1.2 BACKGROUND
One of the distinctive attributes of environmental technology is that the state-of-the-
art continually changes. To ensure that services and agencies within DOD, the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), and EPA
have the latest information regarding the status of environmentally applicable
technologies, technology transfer documents are periodically updated and published.
These publications provide a reference to site characterization, installation
restoration (IR), hazardous waste control, and pollution prevention technologies.
They increase technology awareness, enhance coordination, and aid in preventing
duplication of environmental technology development efforts. Information
contained in these documents is obtained from federal research facilities as well as
from private-sector vendors involved in research and development and
implementation of methods to characterize and clean up contaminated sites and
materials.
A list of U.S. Government reports documenting innovative and conventional site

remediation technologies that are incorporated into this guide is presented in Table
1-1. These documents are described in greater detail in Appendix E.
TABLE 1-1
U.S. GOVERNMENT REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY REPORTS INCORPORATED
INTO THIS GUIDE
Government Sponsoring Agency Title
U.S. Army Environmental Center (USAEC) Installation Restoration and Hazardous Waste Control
Technologies, Third Edition, November 1992
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative

(FRTR) Site Remediation Technologies, Third Edition, August
1993
Accessing Federal Data Bases for Contaminated Site
Clean-Up Technologies, Third Edition, September
1993
Federal Publications on Alternative and Innovative
Treatment Technologies for Corrective Action and Site
Remediation, Third Edition, September 1993
EPA The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation

(SITE) Program: Technology Profiles, Sixth Edition,
November 1993
DOE Technology Catalogue, First Edition, February 1994
U.S. Air Force (USAF), EPA Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and
Reference Guide, Version I, July 1993
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s1 10/31/00
1-3

USAF Remedial Technology Design, Performance, and Cost
Study, July 1992
California Base Closure Environmental Treatment Technologies Applications Matrix for Base
Committee Closure Activities, November 1993
EPA/U.S. Navy EPA/Navy CERCLA Remedial Action Technology

Guide, November 1993
? 1.3 HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT

This guide contains six sections:
· 1. Introduction
· 2. Contaminant Perspectives
· 3. Treatment Perspectives
· 4. Treatment Technology Profiles
· 5. References
· 6. Index
Section 1, the Introduction, presents objectives, background information, guidance

on how to use this document, and limitations on its use.
Sections 2 through 5 are intended to aid an RPM in performing the RI/FS or

equivalent process (see Figure 1-2).
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s1 10/31/00
1-4
INTRODUCTION
FIGURE 1-2 THE ROLE OF THIS DOCUMENT IN THE RI/FS PROCESS (OR EQUIVALENT)
Section 2, Contaminant Perspectives, addresses contaminant properties and

behavior and preliminarily identifies potential treatment technologies based on their
applicability to specific contaminants and media. This section describes five
contaminant groups, as determined by the DOD Environmental Technology
Transfer Committee (ETTC):
· Volatile organic compounds (VOCs).

· Semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs).
· Fuels.
· Inorganics.
· Explosives.
Treatment technologies capable of treating a contaminant group are presented in a

technology screening matrix for each of the five contaminant groups. The most
commonly used technologies are discussed in the text for that contaminant in soil,
sediment, and sludge, and in groundwater, surface water, and leachate. (The
discussion of VOCs also addresses air emissions and off-gases.) If presumptive
treatments are available for the contaminants, they are identified in this section.
Section 2 will also aid in scoping the RI/FS by identifying data needs in order to
characterize contamination in media and by identifying potential contaminants based
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s1 10/31/00
1-5
on historical usage of the site.
Section 3, Treatment Perspectives, provides an overview of each treatment

process group and how it will impact technology implementation [e.g., ex situ soil
treatment (as compared to in situ soil treatment) leads to additional cost, handling,
permitting, and safety concerns as a result of excavation]. The treatment process
groups discussed include the following 13 treatment areas:
· In situ biological treatment for soil, sediment, and sludge.
· In situ physical/chemical treatment for soil, sediment, and sludge.
· In situ thermal treatment for soil, sediment, and sludge.
· Ex situ biological treatment for soil, sediment, and sludge.
· Ex situ physical/chemical treatment for soil, sediment, and sludge.
· Ex situ thermal treatment for soil, sediment, and sludge.
· Other treatments for soil, sediment, and sludge.
· In situ biological treatment for groundwater, surface water, and leachate.
· In situ physical/chemical treatment for groundwater, surface water, and

leachate.
· Ex situ biological treatment for groundwater, surface water, and leachate.
· Ex situ physical/chemical treatment for groundwater, surface water, and

leachate.
· Other treatments for groundwater, surface water, and leachate.
· Air emissions/off-gas treatment.
Section 3 will aid the RPM in screening potential treatment technologies based on
site requirements and in combining potential treatment technologies into remedial
action alternatives for the overall site. A comprehensive screening matrix listing
each of the treatment technologies contained in this document is presented in this
section. Information on completed projects in these treatment process areas has
been presented in tables extracted from the Innovative Treatment Technologies:
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s1 10/31/00
1-6
INTRODUCTION
Annual Status Report (EPA, 1993), and the Synopses of Federal Demonstrations
of Innovative Site Remediation Technologies (FRTR, 1993).
Section 4, Treatment Technology Profiles, enables the RPM to perform a more

detailed analysis of the remedial action alternatives. The treatment technology
descriptions include the following information:
· Description.
· Applicability.
· Limitations.
· Data needs.
· Performance data.
· Cost.
· Site information (typically, three representative sites with the most complete
information were chosen).
· Points of contact (typically, three contacts representing different government

agencies were extracted from the source documents).
· References (typically, five published public sector reports were extracted

from the source documents).
Information contained in these profiles was extracted from the source documents,
followed by an extensive review by the DOD ETTC. The cost data are provided
solely as a general indicator of the treatment cost and should be verified with
specific technology vendors, independent cost estimates, and past experience.
Specific technology vendors may be identified by accessing the Vendor Information
System for Innovative Treatment Technologies (VISITT) data base. Although the
VISITT data base does not include information on vendors for
solidification/stabilization, information on these technologies was added.
Information on this data base and a current (1994) vendor list printout are in
Appendix A.
Section 5, References, presents a list of documents that contain additional

information on treatment technologies. Information on where to obtain federal
documents is provided in Subsection 5.1. Subsection 5.2 presents references on
innovative treatment technologies sorted by technology type. Subsection 5.3
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s1 10/31/00
1-7
presents a comprehensive list of sources of additional information (including the

references presented in Section 4 for each treatment technology), which is a
compilation of all published references that were presented in each of the source
documents.
Section 6, Index, provides a 100-keyword index to this document.
The five appendices to this document contain the following information:
· Appendix A, Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment

Technologies (VISITT). This appendix provides a brief description of the
VISITT data base and a current printout of the vendors of technologies
included in this guide, including the company name and telephone number.
· Appendix B, DOE Site Remediation Technologies by Waste Contaminant

Matrix and Completed Site Demonstration Program Projects as of
October 1993. Table B-1 provides a complete listing of the treatment
technologies provided in the DOE Technology Catalogue organized by the
contaminant applicability. Table B-2 provides a listing of completed SITE
Demonstration Programs reproduced from Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation Program, Technology Profiles, Sixth Edition.
· Appendix C, Federal Data Bases and Additional Information Sources.

This appendix provides a listing of sources of follow-up information,
including data bases, document printing offices, and information centers.
· Appendix D, Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance. This

appendix documents the results of an FRTR meeting on 26 October and 9
November 1993 to review related activities, identify information needs, and
develop a strategy for documentation of cost and performance information.
· Appendix E, Description of Source Documents. This appendix provides a

description of each of the government documents that were the origin of this
compendium document. Many other sources not listed here were also used to
a lesser extent. These additional sources are presented in Section 5,
References.
The two attachments to this document contain the following information.
· Attachment 1, Treatment Technologies Screening Matrix. This

attachment provides an overall summary of treatment technologies with their
development status, availability, residuals produced, treatment train,
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s1 10/31/00
1-8
INTRODUCTION
contaminants treated, system reliability/maintainability, cleanup time, overall

cost, and O&M/capital intensive status. Rating codes (better, average, or
worse) have been provided for applicable parameters.
· Attachment 2, Remediation Technology Application and Cost Guide.

This attachment consists of a summary table presented on three foldout
pages. The table provides a concise summary of remedial technology
applications and costs for remedial strategies. The information in the table
includes remedial strategy, media, remedial technology, conditions favorable
to use, unit cost range, major cost drivers, and additional comments.
? 1.4 REQUIREMENTS TO CONSIDER TECHNOLOGY'S IMPACTS ON

NATURAL RESOURCES
Because the use of various treatment technologies can have a significant impact on a
site's natural resources, careful consideration of these effects should be made when
selecting technologies for cleanup. Following a site cleanup, both the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) and the Oil Pollutant Act (OPA) require that residual natural resource
injuries be assessed by federal, state, and/or tribal natural resource trustees, and
restoration of those injured resources are to be accomplished. Restoration is
generally defined as returning natural resources to their pre-incident conditions.
Through coordination among agencies responsible for cleanup and restoration

(natural resource trustees, such as U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife,
and State Department of Natural Resources personnel), cleanup technologies can be
selected that minimize the residual injury that will need to be dealt with in the
Natural Resources Damage Assessment and Restoration process. To ensure that
such concerns are properly considered in the selection of cleanup technologies, the
DOI advises that the RPM contact the local representative of a site's resource
trustee as early as possible in the selection process (e.g., the Fish and Wildlife
Service). Such cooperative efforts should improve efficiency and reduce overall
costs of the combined cleanup/restoration processes.
? 1.5 CAUTIONARY NOTES

This document is not designed to be used as the sole basis for remedy selection.
This guide and supporting information should be used only as a guidance
document, and the exclusion or omission of a specific treatment technology does
not necessarily mean that a technology is not applicable to a site.
It is important to recognize that the amount of information about technologies is

rapidly growing. Information currently contained in this document was primarily
excerpted from 1992, 1993, and 1994 source documents. This information was
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s1 10/31/00
1-9
subsequently updated to the maximum extent possible through the interagency

review process used in preparing this handbook. After identifying potentially
applicable technologies, however, it is essential that prior to remedy selection RPMs
consult the individual treatment technology vendor and/or government point of
contact to evaluate technology, cost, and performance data in light of the most up-
to-date information and site-specific conditions. Additional information to support
identification and analysis of potentially applicable technologies can be obtained by
consulting published references and contacting technology experts. The final
selection of technology usually requires additional site-specific treatability studies.
The reader is encouraged to keep information current by adding new information as
it becomes available.
? 1.6 MAIL-IN SURVEY

This mail-in-survey form serves as the primary opportunity for providing feedback
on this document. By sending their feedback, readers will get the opportunity to be
involved in future update and review efforts. Readers may send their comments by
mail or transmit electronically. The Internet address is provided on the form for
electronic responses.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s1 10/31/00
1-10
MAIL-IN SURVEY*
If you would like to be involved in future update and review efforts, fill in your address and/or
telephone number below:
Is the information in this publication:
Poor Excellent
Easy to find? 1 ____ 2 ____ 3 ____ 4 ____ 5 ____
Presented in a user-friendly manner? 1 ____ 2 ____ 3 ____ 4 ____ 5 ____
Appropriate to your needs? 1 ____ 2 ____ 3 ____ 4 ____ 5 ____
Up to date? 1 ____ 2 ____ 3 ____ 4 ____ 5 ____
If you know of additional sources of information or specific data bases that should be included in this
publication, or if you are often in need of this type of information and don't know how to find it, please
make a note on this page.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Suggested Improvements (Additions of Points of Contact or other suggested changes):
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
*Internet address: egengber@aec.apgea.army.mil
FAX (410) 612-6836
Fold here
-----------------------------------------------------------
_____________________ STAMP
_____________________
_____________________
COMMANDER
U.S. ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER
ATTN: SFIM-AEC-ETD (EDWARD ENGBERT)
APG, MD 21010-5401
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Fold here
Section 2
CONTAMINANT PERSPECTIVES
Information on classes and concentrations of chemical contaminants, how they are

distributed through the site, and in what media they appear is essential to begin the
preselection of treatment technologies. In this document, contaminants have been
separated into five contaminant groups as follows:
· Volatile organic compounds (VOCs).

· Semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs).
· Fuels.
· Inorganics (inclding radioactive elements).
· Explosives.
This section presents a discussion of the properties and behaviors of the

contaminant groups, followed by a discussion of the most commonly used treatment
technologies available for that contaminant group. (Less commonly used treatment
technologies are identified in the treatment technology screening matrix and may be
found in Section 4.) Each discussion of the contaminant groups is divided into two
media classifications: (1) soil, sediment, and sludge and (2) groundwater, surface
water, and leachate. (The VOC contamination section additionally addresses air
emissions and off-gases.)
A matrix summarizing treatment technology information is presented for each

contaminant group. It should be noted that these technologies are not necessarily
effective at treating all contaminants in the contaminant group. Information
summarized includes the development status (full-scale or pilot-testing), the use
rating (widely/commonly used or limited use), the applicability rating (better,
average, or below average), and the treatment function (destruction, extraction, or
immobilization). The "use" rating was determined from information presented in the
Treatment Technologies Applications Matrix for Base Closure Activities
(California Base Closure Environmental Committee, 1993). The applicability
rating was determined from information presented in the first edition of this
document (EPA, USAF, 1993). Please note, a treatment technology may be
applicable to treat a specific contaminant group, but may not be widely used
because of factors such as cost, public acceptance, or implementability. All
information presented in these matrices has been subjected to rigorous ETTC
member review and amended where appropriate for the purposes of this document.
Subsection 2.1 presents a discussion of the presumptive remedy process.

Subsection 2.2, Data Requirements, addresses the specific data elements required to
characterize each medium and the impact on technology selection. Discussion of
each of the five contaminant groups appears in Subsections 2.3 to 2.7.
Pilot scale describes all techniques not yet developed to full-scale, including those
still in the bench-scale phase of development.
? 2.1 PRESUMPTIVE REMEDIES

A presumptive remedy is a technology that EPA believes, based upon its past
experience, generally will be the most appropriate remedy for a specified type of
site. EPA is establishing presumptive remedies to accelerate site-specific analysis
of remedies by focusing the feasibility study efforts. EPA expects that a
presumptive remedy, when available, will be used for all CERCLA sites except
under unusual circumstances.
Accordingly, EPA has determined that, when using presumptive remedies, the site
characterization data collection effort can be limited, and the detailed analysis can
be limited to the presumptive remedies (in addition to the no-action alternative),
thereby streamlining that portion of the FS. Supporting documentation should be
included in the Administrative Record for all sites that use the presumptive remedy
process to document the basis for eliminating the site-specific identification. This
supporting documentation is provided in the presumptive remedy document itself.
Circumstances where a presumption remedy may not be used include unusual site
soil characteristics or mixtures of contaminants not treated by the remedy,
demonstration of significant advantages of alternate (or innovative) technologies
over the presumptive remedies, or extraordinary community and state concerns.
The use of nonpresumptive-remedy technologies, or the absence of a presumptive
remedy entirely, does not render the selected treatment technology less effective.
The presumptive remedy is simply an expedited approval process, not the only
technically feasible alternative. If such circumstances are encountered, additional
analyses may be necessary or a more conventional detailed RI/FS may be
performed.
There are currently three published presumptive remedy documents:
• Presumptive Remedies: Policies and Procedures (EPA, 1993). EPA

Document No. 540-F-93-047.
• Presumptive Remedies: Site Characterization and Technology Selection for

CERCLA Sites with Volatile Organic Compounds in Soils (EPA, 1993).
EPA Document No. 540-F-93-048.
• Presumptive Remedy for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites (EPA, 1993).

EPA Document No. 540-F-93-035.
Additional presumptive remedies are currently being determined for wood treating,
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-2
contaminated groundwater, PCB, coal gas, and grain storage sites.
In addition, there is a desire among various governmental agencies to expand this

process, or develop a parallel process for their remediation projects. For example,
the U.S. Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence/Technology Transfer
Division (AFCEE/ERT) advocates the use of the following remedies:
• Bioventing for fuel-contaminated soils.
• A combination of vacuum-enhanced free product recovery and

bioremediation for light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) floating product.
• Natural attenuation for petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated groundwater.
? 2.2 DATA REQUIREMENTS

For all remedial investigation and cleanup sites, the vertical and horizontal
contaminant profiles should be defined as much as possible. Information on the
overall range and diversity of contamination across the site is critical to treatment
technology selection. Obtaining this information generally requires taking samples
and determining their physical and chemical characteristics. If certain types of
technologies are candidates for use, the specific data needs for these technologies
can be met during the initial stages of the investigation. The data requirements are
technology-specific and not risk-based. The following subsections present a partial
list of the characteristics and rationale for collection of treatment technology
preselection data for each of the three media. A matrix of characteristics affecting
treatment cost or performance versus technologies is provided in Appendix D, which
is also an effort by ETTC.
? 2.2.1 Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge

Site soil conditions frequently limit the selection of a treatment process. Process-
limiting characteristics such as pH or moisture content may sometimes be adjusted.
In other cases, a treatment technology may be eliminated based upon the soil
classification (e.g., particle-size distribution) or other soil characteristics.
Soils are inherently variable in their physical and chemical characteristics. Usually
the variability is much greater vertically than horizontally, resulting from the
variability in the processes that originally formed the soils. The soil variability, in
turn, will result in variability in the distribution of water and contaminants and in
the ease with which they can be transported within, and removed from, the soil at a
particular site.
Many data elements are relatively easy to obtain, and in some cases more than one
test method exists. Field procedures are performed for recording data or for
collecting samples to determine the classification, moisture content, and
permeability of soils across a site. Field reports describing soil variability may
lessen the need for large numbers of samples and measurements to describe site
characteristics. Common field information-gathering often includes descriptions of
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-3
natural soil exposures, weathering that may have taken place, cross-sections,
subsurface cores, and soil sampling. Such an effort can sometimes identify
probable areas of past disposal through observation of soil type differences,
subsidence, and backfill.
Soil particle-size distribution is an important factor in many soil treatment

technologies. In general, coarse, unconsolidated materials, such as sands and fine
gravels, are easiest to treat. Soil washing may not be effective where the soil is
composed of large percentages of silt and clay because of the difficulty of
separating the adsorbed contaminants from fine particles and from wash fluids.
Fine particles also can result in high particulate loading in flue gases from rotary
kilns as a result of turbulence. Heterogeneities in soil and waste composition may
produce nonuniform feedstreams for many treatment processes that result in
inconsistent removal rates. Fine particles may delay setting and curing times and
can surround larger particles, causing weakened bonds in solidification/stabilization
processes. Clays may cause poor performance of the thermal desorption technology
as a result of caking. High silt and clay content can cause soil malleability and low
permeability during steam extraction, thus lowering the efficiency of the process.
Soil homogeneity and isotropy may impede in situ technologies that are dependent
on the subsurface flow of fluids, such as soil flushing, steam extraction, vacuum
extraction, and in situ biodegradation. Undesirable channeling may be created in
alternating layers of clay and sand, resulting in inconsistent treatment. Larger
particles, such as coarse gravel or cobbles, are undesirable for vitrification and
chemical extraction processes and also may not be suitable for the
stabilization/solidification technology.
The bulk density of soil is the weight of the soil per unit volume, including water
and voids. It is used in converting weight to volume in materials handling
calculations, and can aid in determining if proper mixing and heat transfer will
occur.
Particle density is the specific gravity of a soil particle. Differences in particle

density are important in heavy mineral/metal separation processes (heavy media
separation). Particle density is also important in soil washing and in determining the
settling velocity of suspended soil particles in flocculation and sedimentation
processes.
Soil permeability is one of the controlling factors in the effectiveness of in situ

treatment technologies. The ability of soil-flushing fluids (e.g., water, steam,
solvents, etc.) to contact and remove contaminants can be reduced by low soil
permeability or by variations in the permeability of different soil layers. Low
permeability also hinders the movement of air and vapors through the soil matrix.
This can lessen the volatilization of VOCs in SVE processes. Similarly, nutrient
solutions, used to accelerate in situ bioremediation, may not be able to penetrate
low-permeability soils in a reasonable time. Low permeability may also limit the
effectiveness of in situ vitrification by slowing vapor releases.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-4
High soil moisture may hinder the movement of air through the soil in vacuum
extraction systems and may cause excavation and material transport problems.
High soil moisture also affects the application of vitrification and other thermal
treatments by increasing energy requirements, thereby increasing costs. On the
other hand, increased soil moisture favors in situ biological treatment.
The pH of the waste being treated may affect many treatment technologies. The
solubility of inorganic contaminants is affected by pH; high pH in soil normally
lowers the mobility of inorganics in soil. The effectiveness of ion exchange and
flocculation processes may be negatively influenced by extreme pH ranges.
Microbial diversity and activity in bioremediation processes also can be affected by
extreme pH ranges.
Eh is the oxidation-reduction (redox) potential of the material being considered when

oxidation-reduction types of chemical reactions are involved. Examples of these
types of reactions include alkaline chlorination of cyanides, reduction of hexavalent
chromium with sulfite under acidic conditions, aerobic oxidation of organic
compounds into CO2 and H2O, or anaerobic decomposition of organic compounds
into CO2 and CH4. Maintaining a low Eh in the liquid phase enhances anaerobic
biologic decomposition of certain halogenated organic compounds.
Kow (the octanol/water partition coefficient) is defined as the ratio of a chemical's

concentration in the octanol phase to its concentration in the aqueous phase of a
two-phase octanol/water system. Kow is a key parameter in describing the fate of an
organic chemicals in environmental systems. It has been found to be related to the
water solubility, soil/sediment adsorption coefficient, and the bioconcentration
factors for aquatic species. The physical meaning of Kow is the tendency of a
chemical to partition itself between an organic phase [e.g., polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) in a solvent] and an aqueous phase. Chemicals that have a
low Kow value (<10) may be considered relatively hydrophilic; they tend to have a
high water solubility, small soil/sediment adsorption coefficients, and small
bioconcentration factors for aquatic life. Conversely, a chemical with a large Kow
4
(>10 ) is considered hydrophobic and tends to accumulate at organic surfaces, such
as on humic soil and aquatic species.
Humic content (organic fraction) is the decomposing part of the naturally occurring
organic content of the soil. High humic content will act to bind the soil, decreasing
the mobility of organics and decreasing the threat to groundwater; however, high
humic content can inhibit soil vapor extraction (SVE), steam extraction, soil
washing, and soil flushing as a result of strong adsorption of the contaminant by the
organic material. Reaction times for chemical dehalogenation processes can be
increased by the presence of large amounts of humic materials. High organic
content may also exert an excessive oxygen demand, adversely affecting
bioremediation and chemical oxidation.
Total organic carbon (TOC) provides an indication of the total organic material
present. It is often used as an indicator (but not a measure) of the amount of waste
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-5
available for biodegradation. TOC includes the carbon both from naturally-
occurring organic material and organic chemical contaminants; however, all of it
competes in reduction/oxidation reactions leading to the need for larger amounts of
chemical reagents than would be required by the contaminants alone.
Measurement of volatile hydrocarbons, oxygen (O2), and carbon dioxide (CO2) at

sites containing biodegradable contaminants like petroleum hydrocarbons or sites
with high TOC is useful in further delineating and confirming areas contaminated as
well as identifying the strong potential for bioremediation by bioventing. In
addition, if the use of thermal combustion or certain oxidation systems is planned
for off-gas treatment of extracted vapors, then adequate supply of air or oxygen will
have to be provided to efficiently operate these systems.
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) provides an estimate of the aerobic biological

decomposition of the soil organics by measuring the oxygen consumption of the
organic material that can be readily or eventually biodegraded. Chemical oxygen
demand (COD) is a measure of the oxygen equivalent of the organic content in a
sample that can be oxidized by a strong chemical oxidant such as dichromate or
permanganate. Sometimes COD and BOD can be correlated, and the COD/BOD
ratio can give another indication of biological treatability or treatability by chemical
oxidation. COD is also useful in assessing the applicability of wet air oxidation.
One of the major determining factors in the fate of biodegradable contaminants is

the availability of sufficient electron acceptors (i.e., oxygen, nitrate, iron,
manganese, sulfate, etc.) to support biodegradation. Internal tracers, such as
trimethyl and tetramethylbenzenes, are normal constituents of fuels that are
significantly less biodegradable than benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes
(BTEX), yet have very similar transport characteristics. Thus, these "internal
tracers" can be detected downgradient of the remediation area, thereby
demonstrating that monitoring wells are properly placed and the absence of BTEX
is a result of biodegradation. The concentrations of these tracers can also provide a
basis to correct for the contribution of dilution to contaminant attenuation.
Oil and grease, when present in a soil, will coat the soil particles. The coating
tends to weaken the bond between soil and cement in cement-based solidification.
Similarly, oil and grease can also interfere with reactant-to-waste contact in
chemical reduction/oxidation reactions, thus reducing the efficiency of those
reactions.
? 2.2.2 Data Requirements for Groundwater, Surface Water, and Leachate

It is common for groundwater to be contaminated with the water soluble substances
found in overlying soils. Many of the required data elements are similar, e.g., pH,
TOC, BOD, COD, oil and grease, contaminant identification and quantification,
and soil and aquifer characterization. Additional water quality monitoring data
elements include hardness, ammonia, total dissolved solids, and metals content (e.g.,
iron, manganese). Knowledge of the site conditions and history may contribute to
selecting a list of contaminants and cost-effective analytical methods.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-6
As with soils, the pH of groundwater is important in determining the applicability of

many treatment processes. Often, the pH must be adjusted before or during a
treatment process. Low pH can interfere with chemical reduction/oxidation
processes. Extreme pH levels can limit microbial diversity and hamper the
application of both in situ and aboveground applications of biological treatment.
Contaminant solubility and toxicity may be affected by changes in pH. The species
of metals and inorganics present are influenced by the pH of the water, as are the
type of phenolic and nitrogen-containing compounds present. Processes such as
carbon adsorption, ion exchange, and flocculation may be affected by pH.
Eh helps to define, with pH, the state of oxidation-reduction equilibria in aqueous

wastestreams. As noted earlier in the soils section, maintaining anaerobiosis (low
Eh) enhances decomposition of certain halogenated compounds.
BOD, COD, and TOC measurements in contaminated water, as in soils, provide

indications of the biodegradable, chemically oxidizable, or combustible fractions of
the organic contamination, respectively. These measurements are not
interchangeable, although correlations may sometimes be made in order to convert
the more precise TOC and/or COD measurements to estimates of BOD.
Oil and grease, even in low concentrations, may require pretreatment to prevent
clogging of primary treatment systems (i.e., ion exchange resins, activated carbon
systems, or other treatment system components). Oil and grease may be present in a
separate phase in groundwater.
Suspended solids can cause clogging of primary treatment systems and may require
pretreatment of the wastestream through coagulation/sedimentation and/or filtration.
Major anions (chloride, sulfate, phosphate, and nitrate) and cations (calcium,
magnesium, sodium, and potassium) are important for evaluating in situ
geochemical interactions, contaminant speciation, and water-bearing zone migration.
Iron concentrations should be measured to determine the potential for
precipitation upon aeration. Alkalinity should also be measured when analyzing for
major anions and cations.
In addition to chemical parameters, geologic and hydrologic information is usually

needed to plan and monitor a groundwater remediation. A detailed geologic
characterization is usually needed to assess the uniformity (homogeneity and
isotropy) of the subsurface hydrostratigraphy. The average rate of groundwater
flow can be estimated from the hydraulic conductivity, hydraulic gradient, and
effective porosity. Hydraulic gradient is calculated from groundwater elevations
measured in monitor wells. Effective porosity is usually assumed based on ranges
of values cited in scientific literature or estimated from pumping tests. Hydraulic
conductivity is usually estimated from slug tests or pumping tests. If an active
groundwater extraction system is being planned, safe aquifer yields and boundary
conditions must be established. These parameters require that pumping tests be
conducted.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-7
? 2.2.3 Data Requirements for Air Emissions/Off-Gases

Predictive modeling may be useful in estimating emissions from a site or treatment
system. An appropriate theoretical model is selected to represent the system (e.g.,
SVE treatment, incinerator, etc.), and site and contaminant information is used to
estimate gross emissions. Because many variables affect emission rates, this
approach is limited by the representativeness of the model and by the input used.
This approach is usually used as a screening-level or pre-design evaluation. Site-
specific data to support planning or technology selection activities (e.g., health risk
assessments, pilot-scale studies) should be performed prior to actual
implementation.
Emissions of VOCs and particulate matter during site disturbances, such as

excavation, may be several orders of magnitude greater than the emission levels of
an undisturbed site. The potential air emissions from the undisturbed and disturbed
site must be understood before developing a site mitigation strategy. EPA has
developed a systematic approach, called an Air Pathway Analysis (APA), for
determining what air contaminants are present and at what level these compounds
may be released into the atmosphere. The APA method is outlined in a four-volume
series (Air Superfund National Technical Guidance Study Series, EPA, 1989).
Emissions from treatment systems (e.g., SVE or incinerators, etc.) may be

approximated by using soil contaminant concentrations and flow or throughput rate.
If the use of thermal combustion or certain oxidation systems is planned for off-gas
treatment of extracted vapors, then an adequate supply of air/oxygen will have to be
provided for in order to operate these efficiently.
Information regarding the concentration and permeability/percent flow at discrete

vertical intervals is extremely useful in optimized recovery from the regions of
highest contaminant mass/removal potential. In other words, if 90% of the
contaminant mass is being extracted from only 5% of the vertical interval, then off-
gas treatment is biased by the large contribution of uncontaminated soil gas. Thus,
changes in screened intervals, flow rates, mass transfer rates, and residual
contaminant composition over time can dramatically affect off-gas treatment and
should be evaluated.
? 2.3 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCs)

Sites where VOCs may be found include burn pits, chemical manufacturing plants
or disposal areas, contaminated marine sediments, disposal wells and leach fields,
electroplating/metal finishing shops, firefighting training areas, hangars/aircraft
maintenance areas, landfills and burial pits, leaking collection and system sanitary
lines, leaking storage tanks, radioactive/mixed waste disposal areas, oxidation
ponds/lagoons, paint stripping and spray booth areas, pesticide/herbicide mixing
areas, solvent degreasing areas, surface impoundments, and vehicle maintenance
areas. Potentially applicable remediation technologies are presented in Table 2-1.
Typical VOCs (excluding fuels, BTEX, and gas phase contaminants, which are
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-8
presented in Subsection 2.5) encountered at many sites include the following:
· Halogenated VOCs
- Bromodichloromethane - 1,1-Dichloroethylene
- Bromoform - Dichloromethane
- Bromomethane - 1,2-Dichloropropane
- Carbon tetrachloride - Ethylene dibromide
- Chlorodibromomethane - Fluorotrichloromethane (Freon 11)
- Chloroethane - Hexachloroethane
- Chloroform - Methylene chloride
- Chloromethane - Monochlorobenzene
- Chloropropane - 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
- Cis-1,2-dichloroethylene - Tetrachloroethylene
- Cis-1,3-dichloropropene (Perchloroethylene) (PCE)
- Dibromomethane - 1,2-Trans-dichloroethylene
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-9
TABLE 2-1 TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES SCREENING MATRIX:
TREATMENT OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
NOTE: Specific site and contaminant characteristics may limit the applicability and effectiveness of any of the
technologies and treatments listed below. This matrix is optimistic in nature and should always be used in conjunction
with the referenced text sections, which contain additional information that can be useful in identifying potentially
applicable technologies.
Technology Development Use Technology

(Text Section and Title) Status Rating Applicabilitya Functiona
SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE
3.1 IN SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
4.1 Biodegradation Full Limited Better Destruct
4.2 Bioventing Full Limited Better Destruct
3.2 IN SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT
4.5 Soil Flushing Pilot Limited Better Extract
4.6 Soil Vapor Extraction Full Wideb Better Extract
3.3 IN SITU THERMAL TREATMENT
4.8 Thermally Enhanced SVE Full Limited Average Extract
4.9 In Situ Vitrification Pilot Limited Below Avg. Extract/Destru
3.4 EX SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT (ASSUMING EXCAVATION)
4.10 Composting Full Limited Better Destruct
4.11 Cont. Solid Phase Bio. Full Limited Better Destruct
4.12 Landfarming Full Limited Better Destruct
4.13 Slurry Phase Bio. Full Limited Better Destruct
3.5 EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT (ASSUMING EXCAVATION)
4.14 Chemical Full Limited Average Destruct
4.15 Dehalogenation (BCD) Full Limited Average Destruct
4.16 Dehalogenation Full Limited Average Destruct
4.17 Soil Washing Full Limited Average Extract
4.18 Soil Vapor Extraction Full Limited Better Extract
4.20 Solvent Extraction Full Limited Average Extract
3.6 EX SITU THERMAL TREATMENT (ASSUMING EXCAVATION)
4.21 High Temp. Thermal Full Limited Average Extract
4.23 Incineration Full Wideb Average Destruct
4.24 Low Temp. Thermal Full Wideb Better Extract
4.26 Pyrolysis Pilot Limited Below Avg. Destruct
4.27 Vitrification Full Limited Average Ext./Destruct
3.7 OTHER TREATMENT
4.28 Excavation and Off-Site NA Limited Average Extract/Immob
4.29 Natural Attenuation NA Limited Better Destruct
GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER, AND LEACHATE
4.30 Co-Metabolic Treatment Pilot Limited Better Destruct
4.31 Nitrate Enhancement Pilot Limited Better Destruct
4.32 Oxygen Enhance. w/Air Full Limited Better Destruct
4.33 Oxygen Enhance. w/H2O2 Full Limited Better Destruct
4.34 Air Sparging Full Limited Better Extract
4.36 Dual Phase Extraction Full Limited Better Extract
4.38 Hot Water or Steam Pilot Limited Average Extract
4.40 Passive Treatment Walls Pilot Limited Better Destruct
4.41 Slurry Walls Full Limited Average Immob.
4.42 Vacuum Vapor Extraction Pilot Limited Better Extract
3.10 EX SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT (ASSUMING PUMPING)
4.43 Bioreactors Full Limited Better Destruct
3.11 EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT (ASSUMING PUMPING)
4.44 Air Stripping Full Wide Better Extract
4.47 Liquid Phase Carbon Full Wide Better Extract
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-10

TREATMENT OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
NOTE: Specific site and contaminant characteristics may limit the applicability and effectiveness of any of the
technologies and treatments listed below. This matrix is optimistic in nature and should always be used in conjunction
4.49 UV Oxidation Full Limited Better Destruct

3.12 OTHER TREATMENT
3.13 AIR EMISSIONS/OFF-GAS
4.51 Biofiltration Full Limited Better Ext./Destruct
4.52 High Energy Corona Pilot Limited Better Destruct
4.53 Membrane Separation Pilot Limited Better Extract
4.54 Oxidation Full Wide Better Destruct
4.55 Vapor Phase Carbon Full Wide Better Extract
a b
The following rankings are discussed in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1. Presumptive remedy.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-11
- 1,1-Dichloroethane - Trans-1,3-dichloropropene
- 1,2-Dichloroethane - 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
- 1,2-Dichloroethene - 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
- Trichloroethylene (TCE) - Vinyl chloride
- 1,2,2-trifluoroethane (Freon
113)
· Nonhalogenated VOCs
- Acetone - Isobutanol
- Acrolein - Methanol
- Acrylonitrile - Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK)
- n-Butyl alcohol - Methyl isobutyl ketone
- Carbon disulfide - 4-Methyl-2-pentanone
- Cyclohexanone - Styrene
- Ethyl acetate - Tetrahydrofuran
- Ethyl ether - Vinyl acetate
? 2.3.1 Properties and Behavior of VOCs

An important consideration when evaluating a remedy is whether the compound is
halogenated or nonhalogenated. A halogenated compound is one onto which a
halogen (e.g., fluorine, chlorine, bromine, or iodine) has been attached. Typical
halogenated and nonhalogenated VOCs have been listed at the beginning of
Subsection 2.3. The nature of the halogen bond and the halogen itself can
significantly affect performance of a technology or require more extensive treatment
than for nonhalogenated compounds.
As an example, consider bioremediation. Generally, halogenated compounds are

less amenable to this form of treatment than nonhalogenated compounds. In
addition, the more halogenated the compound (i.e., the more halogens attached to it),
the more refractive it is toward biodegradation. As another example, incineration of
halogenated compounds requires specific off-gas and scrubber water treatment for
the halogen in addition to the normal controls that are implemented for
nonhalogenated compounds.
Therefore, the vendor of the technology being evaluated must be informed whether
the compounds to be treated are halogenated or nonhalogenated. In most instances,
the vendor needs to know the specific compounds involved so that modifications to
technology designs can be made, where appropriate, to make the technology
successful in treating halogenated compounds.
Subsurface contamination by VOCs potentially exists in four phases:
· Gaseous phase: Contaminants present as vapors in unsaturated zone.
· Solid phase: Contaminants in liquid form adsorbed on soil particles in both

saturated and unsaturated zones.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2
2-12
· Aqueous phase: Contaminants dissolved into pore water according to their

solubility in both saturated and unsaturated zones.
· Immiscible phase: Contaminants present as non-aqueous phase liquids

(NAPLs) primarily in unsaturated zone.
One or more of the fluid phases (gaseous, liquid, aqueous, or immiscible) may
occupy the pore spaces in the unsaturated zone. Residual bulk liquid may be
retained by capillary attraction in the porous media (i.e., NAPLs are no longer a
continuous phase but are present as isolated residual globules).
Residual saturation of bulk liquid may occur through a number of mechanisms.

Volatilization from residual saturation or bulk liquid into the unsaturated pore
spaces produces a vapor plume. Lateral migration of this vapor plume is
independent of groundwater movement and may occur as a result of both advection
and diffusion. Advection is the process by which the vapor plume contaminants are
transported by the movement of air and may result from gas pressure or gas density
gradients. Diffusion is the movement of contaminants from areas of high vapor
concentrations to areas of lower vapor concentrations. Volatilization from
contaminated groundwater also may produce a vapor plume of compounds with
high vapor pressures and high aqueous solubilities.
Dissolution of contaminants from residual saturation or bulk liquid into water may
occur in either the unsaturated or saturated portions of the subsurface with the
contamination then moving with the water. Even low-solubility organics may be
present at low concentrations dissolved in water.
Insoluble organic contaminants may be present as NAPLs. Dense NAPLs

(DNAPLs) have a specific gravity greater than 1 and will tend to sink to the bottom
of surface waters and groundwater aquifers. Light NAPLs (LNAPLs) will float on
top of surface water and groundwater. In addition, DNAPLs and LNAPLs may
adhere to the soil through the capillary fringe and may be found on top of water in
temporary or perched aquifers in the vadose zone.
? 2.3.2 Common Treatment Technologies for VOCs in Soil, Sediment, and

Sludge
Soil vapor extraction (SVE), thermal desorption, and incineration are the
presumptive remedies for Superfund sites with VOC-contaminated soil. Because a
presumptive remedy is a technology that EPA believes, based upon its past
experience, generally will be the most appropriate remedy for a specified type of
site, the presumptive remedy approach will accelerate site-specific analysis of
remedies by focusing the feasibility study efforts. These presumptive remedies can
also be used at non-Superfund sites with VOC-contaminated soils.
SVE is the preferred presumptive remedy. SVE has been selected most frequently
to address VOC contamination at Superfund sites, and performance data indicate
that it effectively treats waste in place at a relatively low cost. In cases where SVE
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-13
mediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
will not work or where uncertainty exists regarding the ability to obtain required
cleanup levels, thermal desorption may be the most appropriate response
technology. In a limited number of situations, incineration may be most
appropriate.
Another commonly used technology, bioventing, uses a similar approach to vapor

extraction in terms of equipment type and layout but uses air injection rather than
extraction and has a different objective: the intent is to use air movement to provide
oxygen for aerobic degradation using either indigenous or introduced
microorganisms. While some organic materials are usually brought to the surface
for treatment with the exhaust air, additional degradation is encouraged in situ.
This difference in approach renders less volatile materials (particularly fuel
products such as diesel fuel) amenable to the process because volatilization into the
soil air is not the primary removal process.
The AFCEE Bioventing Initiative currently encompasses 135 fuel sites at 50

military installations, including one Marine, one Army, and one Coast Guard
facility. Approximately 50% of the current systems are full scale. As of July 1994,
approximately 117 are installed and operating. The remainder are to be installed.
? 2.3.3 Common Treatment Technologies for VOCs in Groundwater, Surface

Water, and Leachate
In addition to the general data requirements discussed in Subsection 2.2.2, it may be
necessary to know other subsurface information to provide remediation of VOCs in
the groundwater. Treatability studies to characterize the biodegradability may be
needed for any biodegradation technologies. Treatability studies are usually
necessary to ensure that the contaminated groundwater can be treated effectively at
the design flow. A subsurface geologic characterization would be needed for any
isolation or stabilization technologies. Groundwater models are also often needed
to predict flow characteristics, changes in contaminant mixes and concentrations,
and times to reach cleanup levels.
The most commonly used technologies to treat VOCs in groundwater, surface

water, and leachate are air stripping and carbon adsorption. These are both ex situ
technologies requiring groundwater extraction.
Air stripping involves the mass transfer of volatile contaminants from water to air.
This process is typically conducted in a packed tower or an aeration tank. The
generic packed tower air stripper includes a spray nozzle at the top of the tower to
distribute contaminated water over the packing in the column, a fan to force air
countercurrent to the water flow, and a sump at the bottom of the tower to collect
decontaminated water. Auxiliary equipment that can be added to the basic air
stripper includes a feed water heater (normally not incorporated within an
operational facility because of the high cost) and an air heater to improve removal
efficiencies, automated control systems with sump level switches and safety features
such as differential pressure monitors, high sump level switches and explosion proof
components, and discharge air treatment systems such as activated carbon units,
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-14
catalytic oxidizers, or thermal oxidizers. Packed tower air strippers are installed
either as permanent installations on concrete pads, or as temporary installations on
skids, or on trailers.
Liquid phase carbon adsorption is a full-scale technology in which groundwater is

pumped through a series of vessels containing activated carbon to which dissolved
contaminants adsorb. When the concentration of contaminants in the effluent from
the bed exceeds a certain level, the carbon can be regenerated in place; removed and
regenerated at an off-site facility; or removed and disposed of. Carbon used for
explosives- or metals-contaminated groundwater must be removed and properly
disposed of. Adsorption by activated carbon has a long history of use in treating
municipal, industrial, and hazardous wastes.
? 2.3.4 Common Treatment Technologies for VOCs in Air Emissions/

Off-Gases
Three technologies that are most commonly used to treat VOCs in air emissions/off-
gases are carbon adsorption, catalytic oxidation, and thermal oxidation.
Carbon adsorption is a remediation technology in which pollutants are removed

from air by physical adsorption onto the carbon grain. Carbon is "activated" for
this purpose by processing the carbon to create porous particles with a large internal
surface area (300 to 2,500 square meters per gram of carbon) that attracts and
adsorbs organic molecules as well as certain metal and other inorganic molecules.
Commercial grades of activated carbon are available for specific use in vapor-phase
applications. The granular form of activated carbon is typically used in packed
beds through which the contaminated air flows until the concentration of
contaminants in the effluent from the carbon bed exceeds an acceptable level.
Granular activated carbon systems typically consist of one or more vessels filled
with carbon connected in series and/or parallel operating under atmospheric,
negative, or positive pressure. The carbon can then be regenerated in place,
regenerated at an off-site regeneration facility, or disposed of, depending upon
economic considerations.
Catalytic oxidation is a relatively new alternative for the treatment of VOCs in air
streams resulting from remedial operations. VOCs are thermally destroyed at
temperatures typically ranging from 600 to 1,000 ? F by using a solid catalyst.
First, the contaminated air is directly preheated (electrically or, more frequently,
using natural gas or propane) to reach a temperature necessary to initiate the
catalytic oxidation of the VOCs. Then the preheated VOC-laden air is passed
through a bed of solid catalysts where the VOCs are rapidly oxidized.
In most cases, the process can be enhanced to reduce auxiliary fuel costs by using
an air-to-air heat exchanger to transfer heat from the exhaust gases to the incoming
contaminated air. Typically, about 50% of the heat of the exhaust gases is
recovered. Depending on VOC concentrations, the recovered heat may be sufficient
to sustain oxidation without additional fuel. Catalyst systems used to oxidize VOCs
typically use metal oxides such as nickel oxide, copper oxide, manganese dioxide, or
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-15
chromium oxide. Noble metals such as platinum and palladium may also be used.
However, in a majority of remedial applications, nonprecious metals (e.g., nickel,
copper, or chromium) are used. Most commercially available catalysts are
proprietary.
Thermal oxidation equipment is used for destroying contaminants in the exhaust

gas from air strippers and SVE systems. Probably fewer than 100 oxidizers have
been sold to treat air stripper effluents; most of these units are rated less than 600
scfm. Typically, the blower for the air stripper or the vacuum extraction system
provides sufficient positive pressure and flow for thermal oxidizer operation.
Thermal oxidation units are typically single chamber, refractory-lined oxidizers

equipped with a propane or natural gas burner and a stack. Lightweight ceramic
blanket refractory is used because many of these units are mounted on skids or
trailers. Thermal oxidizers are often equipped with heat exchangers where
combustion gas is used to preheat the incoming contaminated gas. If gasoline is the
contaminant, heat exchanger efficiencies are limited to 25 to 35% and preheat
temperatures are maintained below 530 ? F to minimize the possibility of ignition
occurring in the heat exchanger. Flame arrestors are always installed between the
vapor source and the thermal oxidizer. Burner capacities in the combustion
chamber range from 0.5 to 2 million Btus per hour. Operating temperatures range
from 1,400 to 1,600 ? F, and gas residence times are typically 1 second or less.
? 2.4 SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (SVOCs)

Sites where SVOCs may be found include burn pits, chemical manufacturing plants
and disposal areas, contaminated marine sediments, disposal wells and leach fields,
electroplating/metal finishing shops, firefighting training areas, hangars/aircraft
maintenance areas, landfills and burial pits, leaking collection and system sanitary
lines, leaking storage tanks, radiologic/mixed waste disposal areas, oxidation
ponds/lagoons, pesticide/herbicide mixing areas, solvent degreasing areas, surface
impoundments, and vehicle maintenance areas and wood preserving sites.
Potentially applicable remediation technologies are presented in Table 2-2. Typical
SVOCs (excluding fuels and explosives, which are presented in Subsection 2.5)
encountered at many sites include the following:
· Halogenated SVOCs
- Bis(2-chloroethoxy)ether - 1,3-Dichlorobenzene
- 1,2-Bis(2-chloroethoxy) ethane - 1,4-Dichlorobenzene
- Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane - 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
- Bis(2-chloroethoxy) phthalate - 2,4-Dichlorophenol
- Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether - Hexachlorobenzene
- Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether - Hexachlorobutadiene
- 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether - Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
- 4-Chloroaniline - Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
- p-Chloro-m-cresol - Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
- 2-Chloronaphthalene - Tetrachlorophenol
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-16
- 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
TREATMENT OF SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

(Text Section and Title) Status Rating Applicability* Function*
4.1 Biodegradation Full Wide Better Destruct
4.2 Bioventing Full Limited Average Destruct
4.5 Soil Flushing Pilot Limited Average Extract
4.6 Soil Vapor Extraction Full Limited Below Extract
4.7 Solidification/Stabilization Full Limited Average Immob.
4.8 Thermally Enhanced SVE Full Limited Better Extract
4.9 In Situ Vitrification Pilot Limited Average Ext./Destruct
4.10 Composting Full Wide Average Destruct
4.11 Control. Solid Phase Bio. Treat. Full Wide Average Destruct
4.12 Landfarming Full Wide Average Destruct
4.13 Slurry Phase Bio. Treatment Full Limited Average Destruct
4.14 Chemical Reduction/ Oxidation Full Limited Average Destruct
4.15 Dehalogenation (BCD) Full Limited Better Destruct
4.16 Dehalogenation (Glycolate) Full Limited Better Destruct
4.17 Soil Washing Full Limited Better Extract
4.18 Soil Vapor Extraction Full Limited Below Average Extract
4.19 Solidification/Stabilization Full Limited Average Dest./Immob.
4.20 Solvent Extraction Full Limited Better Extract
4.21 High Temp. Thermal Desorption Full Limited Better Extract
4.23 Incineration Full Wide Better Destruct
4.24 Low Temp. Thermal Desorption Full Limited Average Extract
4.26 Pyrolysis Pilot Limited Better Destruct
3.7 OTHER TREATMENT
4.28 Excavation/Off-Site Disp. NA Wide Average Ext./Immob.
4.30 Co-Metabolic Treatment Pilot Limited Better Destruct
4.32 Oxygen Enhance. w/Air Sparg. Full Limited Better Destruct
4.37 Free Product Recovery Full Limited Better Extract
4.38 Hot Water or Steam Flush/Strip Pilot Limited Better Extract
4.40 Passive Treatment Walls Pilot Limited Better Extract
4.42 Vacuum Vapor Extraction Pilot Limited Average Extract
4.43 Bioreactors Full Average Better Destruct
4.44 Air Stripping Full Limited Average Extract
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-17

TREATMENT OF SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
4.47 Liquid Phase Carbon Adsorp. Full Wide Better Extract

4.49 UV Oxidation Full Wide Better Destruct
*The following rankings are discussed in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-18
CONTAMINANT PERSPECTIV
- 2-Chlorophenol - 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
- 4-Chlorophenyl phenylether - 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
- 1,2-Dichlorobenzene
· Nonhalogenated SVOCs
- Benzidine - 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
- Benzoic Acid - Isophorone
- Benzyl alcohol - 2-Nitroaniline
- Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate - 3-Nitroaniline
- Butyl benzyl phthalate - 4-Nitroaniline
- Dibenzofuran - 2-Nitrophenol
- Di-n-butyl phthalate - 4-Nitrophenol
- Di-n-octyl phthalate - n-Nitrosodimethylamine
- Diethyl phthalate - n-Nitrosodiphenylamine
- Dimethyl phthalate - n-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
- 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol - Phenyl naphthalene
- 2,4-Dinitrophenol
· Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
- Acenaphthene - Fluoranthene
- Acenaphthylene - Fluorene
- Anthracene - Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
- Benzo(a)anthracene - 2-Methylnaphthalene
- Benzo(a)pyrene - Naphthalene
- Benzo(b)fluoranthene - Phenanthrene
- Benzo(k)fluoranthene - Pyrene
- Chrysene
· Pesticides
- Aldrin - Endosulfan sulfate

- BHC-alpha - Endrin
- BHC-beta - Endrin aldehyde
- BHC-delta - Ethion
- BHC-gamma - Ethyl parathion
- Chlordane - Heptachlor
- 4,4?-DDD - Heptachlor epoxide
- 4,4?-DDE - Malathion
- 4,4?-DDT - Methylparathion
- Dieldrin - Parathion
- Endosulfan I - Toxaphene
- Endosulfan II
? 2.4.1 Properties and Behavior of SVOCs

As previously discussed for VOCs, an important consideration when evaluating a
remedy is whether the compound is halogenated or nonhalogenated. A halogenated
2-19
compound is one onto which a halogen (e.g., fluorine, chlorine, bromine, or iodine)
has been attached. Typical halogenated and nonhalogenated SVOCs are listed at
the beginning of Subsection 2.4. The nature of the halogen bond and the halogen
itself can significantly affect performance of a technology or require more extensive
treatment than for nonhalogenated compounds.

Subsurface contamination by SVOCs potentially exists in four phases:
· Gaseous phase: contaminants present as vapors in saturated zone.
· Solid phase: contaminants adsorbed or partitioned onto the soil or aquifer

material in both saturated and unsaturated zones.
· Aqueous phase: contaminants dissolved into pore water according to their

solubility in both saturated and unsaturated zones.
· Immiscible phase: contaminants present as NAPLs primarily in saturated

zone.
One or more of the three fluid phases (gaseous, aqueous, or immiscible) may occupy
the pore spaces in the unsaturated zone. Residual bulk liquid may be retained by
capillary attraction in the porous media (i.e., NAPLs are no longer a continuous
phase but are present as isolated residual globules).
Contaminant flow may occur through a number of mechanisms. Volatilization from

residual saturation or bulk liquid into the unsaturated pore spaces produces a vapor
plume. While the degree of volatilization from SVOCs is much less than for VOCs,
this process still occurs.
Dissolution of contaminants from residual saturation or bulk liquid into water may
occur in either the unsaturated or saturated portions of the subsurface with the
contamination then moving with the water. Even low-solubility organics may be
present at low concentrations dissolved in water.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-20
Insoluble or low solubility organic contaminants may be present as NAPLs.

DNAPLs will tend to sink to the bottom of surface waters and groundwater
aquifers. LNAPLs will float on top of surface water and groundwater. In addition,
LNAPLs may adhere to the soil through the capillary fringe and may be found on
top of water in temporary or perched aquifers in the vadose zone.
Properties and behavior of specific SVOC contaminants and contaminant groups

are discussed below:
· PAHs: PAHs are generally biodegradable in soil systems. Lower molecular

weight PAHs are transformed much more quickly than higher molecular
weight PAHs. The less degradable, higher molecular weight compounds have
been classified as carcinogenic PAHs (cPAHs). Therefore, the least
degradable fraction of PAH contaminants in soils is generally subject to the
most stringent cleanup standards. This presents some difficulty in achieving
cleanup goals with bioremediation systems.
Lower molecular weight PAH components are more water soluble than higher
molecular weight PAHs. Readily mobilized compounds, such as
naphthalene, phenanthrene, and anthracene, are slightly water-soluble.
Persistent PAHs, such as chrysene and benzo(a)pyrene, present even lower
water solubilities. Pyrene and fluoranthene are exceptions because these
compounds are more soluble than anthracene, but are not appreciably
metabolized by soil microorganisms. Other factors affect PAH persistence
such as insufficient bacterial membrane permeability, lack of enzyme
specificity, and insufficient aerobic conditions. PAHs may undergo
significant interactions with soil organic matter.
Intermediate PAH degradation products (metabolites) in soil treatment

systems may also display toxicity. Complete mineralization of PAHs is slow;
intermediates may remain for substantial periods of time.
· PCBs: PCBs encompass a class of chlorinated compounds that includes up

to 209 variations or congeners with different physical and chemical
characteristics. PCBs were commonly used as mixtures called aroclors. The
most common aroclors are Aroclor-1254, Aroclor-1260, and Aroclor-1242.
PCBs alone are not usually very mobile in subsurface soils or water;
however, they are typically found in oils associated with electrical
transformers or gas pipelines or sorbed to soil particles, which may transport
the PCBs by wind or water erosion.
· Pentachlorophenol (PCP): PCP is a contaminant found at many wood-

preserving sites. PCP does not decompose when heated to its boiling point
for extended periods of time. Pure PCP is chemically rather inert. The
chlorinated ring structure tends to increase stability, but the polar hydroxyl
group facilitates biological degradation. All monovalent alkali metal salts of
PCP are very soluble in water. The protonated (phenolic) form is less
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-21
soluble, but this degree of solubility is still significant from an environmental

standpoint. PCP can also volatilize from soils. It is denser than water, but
the commonly used solution contains PCP and petroleum solvents in a
mixture less dense than water. Therefore, technical grade PCP floats on the
top of groundwater as a LNAPL.
· Pesticides: The term pesticide is applied to literally thousands of different,

specific chemical-end products. Pesticides include insecticides, fungicides,
herbicides, acaricides, nematodicides, and rodenticides. There are several
commonly used classification criteria that can be used to group pesticides for
purposes of discussion. Conventional methods of classifying pesticides base
categorization on the applicability of a substance or product to the type of
pest control desired. (For example, DDT is used typically as an insecticide.)
The RCRA hazardous waste classification system is based on waste
characterization and sources. Neither of these classification formats is
suitable for use in this document because they have no bearing on applicable
pesticide treatment technologies.
? 2.4.2 Common Treatment Technologies for SVOCs in Soil, Sediment, and

Sludge
Common treatment technologies for SVOCs in soil, sediment, and sludge include
biodegradation, incineration, and excavation with off-site disposal.
All types of biodegradation, both in situ or ex situ, can be considered to remediate

soils: in situ bioremediation, bioventing, composting, controlled solid phase, or
landfarming. Slurry phase biological treatment is also applicable but is less widely
used. Treatability studies should be conducted to evaluate design parameters, such
as degradation rates, supplemental organism addition, cleanup levels achievable,
degradation intermediates, and nutrient/oxygen addition.
Biodegradation uses a process in which indigenous or inoculated microorganisms

(e.g., fungi, bacteria, and other microbes) degrade (i.e., metabolize) organic
contaminants found in soil and/or groundwater. In the presence of sufficient oxygen
(aerobic conditions), microorganisms will ultimately convert many organic
contaminants to carbon dioxide, water, and microbial cell mass. In the absence of
oxygen (anaerobic conditions), the contaminants will be ultimately metabolized to
methane and carbon dioxide. Sometimes contaminants may not be completely
degraded, but only transformed to intermediate products that may be less, equally,
or more hazardous than the original contaminant.
The in situ bioremediation of soil typically involves the percolation or injection of

groundwater or uncontaminated water mixed with nutrients. Ex situ bioremediation
typically uses tilling or continuously mixed slurries to apply oxygen and nutrients,
and is performed in a prepared bed (liners and aeration) or reactor.
Incineration uses high temperatures, 870 to 1,200 ? C (1,400 to 2,200 ? F), to

volatilize and combust (in the presence of oxygen) organic constituents in hazardous
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-22
wastes. The destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) for properly operated
incinerators exceeds the 99.99% requirement for hazardous waste and can be
operated to meet the 99.9999% requirement for PCBs and dioxins.
Distinct incinerator designs available for solids are rotary kiln, fluidized bed, and
infrared units. All three types have been used successfully at full scale.
Excavation and removal of contaminated soil (with or without stabilization) to a

landfill have been performed extensively at many sites. Landfilling of hazardous
materials, especially hazardous wastes, is becoming increasingly difficult and
expensive as a result of growing regulatory control, and may be cost-prohibitive for
sites with large volumes, greater depths, or complex hydrogeologic environments.
Determining the feasibility of off-site disposal requires knowledge of land disposal
restrictions and other regulations developed by state governments.
? 2.4.3 Common Treatment Technologies for SVOCs in Groundwater, Surface

Water, and Leachate
necessary to know other subsurface information to remediate semivolatile organics
in water. Treatability studies may be required to determine the contaminant
biodegradability for any biodegradation technologies. Treatability studies are also
the design flow. A subsurface geologic characterization would be particularly
useful to any isolation or stabilization technologies. Groundwater models are also
often needed to predict flow characteristics, changes in contaminant mixes and
concentrations, capture zones, and times to reach clean up levels.
The most commonly used ex situ treatment technologies for SVOCs in groundwater
and surface water include carbon adsorption and UV oxidation. In situ treatment
technologies are not widely used. Groundwater and surface water concentrations
not sufficiently high to support biological processes, however, for leachate
biological process may be applicable.

contaminants are adsorbed. When the concentration of contaminants in the effluent
from the bed exceeds a certain level, the carbon can be regenerated in place;
removed and regenerated at an off-site facility; or removed and disposed of. Carbon
used for explosives- or metals-contaminated groundwater must be removed and
properly disposed of. Adsorption by activated carbon has a long history of use in
treating municipal, industrial, and hazardous wastes.
UV oxidation is a destruction process that oxidizes organic and explosive

constituents in wastewaters by the addition of strong oxidizers and irradiation with
intense UV light. The oxidation reactions are catalyzed by UV light, while ozone
(O3) and/or hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) are commonly used as oxidizing agents. The
final products of oxidation are carbon dioxide, water, and salts. The main
advantage of UV oxidation is that organic contaminants can be converted to
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-23
relatively harmless carbon dioxide and water by hydroxyl radicals generated during
the process. UV oxidation processes can be configured in batch or continuous flow
modes. Catalyst addition may enhance the performance of the system.
? 2.5 FUELS
Sites where fuel contaminants may be found include aircraft areas, burn pits, chemical disposal
areas, contaminated marine sediments, disposal wells and leach fields, firefighting
training areas, hangars/aircraft maintenance areas, landfills and burial pits, leaking
storage tanks, solvent degreasing areas, surface impoundments, and vehicle
maintenance areas. Potentially applicable remediation technologies are presented in
Table 2-3. Typical fuel contaminants encountered at many sites include the
following:
· Acenaphthene · Methylcyclohexane
· Anthracene
· Benz(a)anthracene
· Benzene
- Benzo(b)fluoranthene
- Benzo(k)fluoranthene
- Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
- Benzo(a)pyrene
- Chrysene
- Cis-2-butene
- Creosols
· Cyclohexane
· Cyclopentane
· Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
· 2,3-Dimethylbutane
· 3,3-Dimethyl-1-butene
· Dimethylethylbenzene
· 2,2-Dimethylheptane
· 2,2-Dimethylhexane
· 2,2-Dimethylpentane
· 2,3-Dimethylpentane
· 2,4-Dimethylphenol
· Ethylbenzene
· 3-Ethylpentane
· Fluoranthene
· Fluorene
· Ideno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
· Isobutane
· Isopentane
· 2-Methyl-1,3-butadiene
· 3-Methyl-1,2-butadiene
· 2-Methyl-butene
· 2-Methyl-2-butene
· 3-Methyl-1-butene
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-24
· Methylcyclopentane
· 2-Methylheptane
· 3-Methylheptane
· 3-Methylhexane
· Methylnaphthalene
· 2-Methylnaphthalene
· 2-Methylpentane
· 3-Methylpentane
· 3-Methyl-1-pentene
· 2-Methylphenol
· 4-Methylphenol
· Methylpropylbenzene
· m-Xylene
· Naphthalene
· n-Butane
· n-Decane
· n-Dodecane
· n-Heptane
· n-Hexane
· n-Hexylbenzene
· n-Nonane
· n-Nonane
· n-Octane
· n-Pentane
· n-Propylbenzene
· n-Undecane
· o-Xylene
· 1-Pentene
· Phenanthrene
· Phenol
· Propane
· p-Xylene
· Pyrene
· Pyridine
· 1,2,3,4-Tetramethylbenzene
TREATMENT OF FUELS

4.1 Biodegradation Full Wide Better Destruct
4.2 Bioventing Full Wide Better Destruct
4.5 Soil Flushing Pilot Limited Average Extract
4.6 Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Full Wide Better Extract
4.8 Thermally Enhanced SVE Full Limited Better Extract
2-25

TREATMENT OF FUELS
4.9 In Situ Vitrification Pilot Limited Below Average Immob./Dest.

4.10 Composting Full Wide Better Destruct
4.11 Control. Solid Phase Bio. Full Wide Better Destruct
4.12 Landfarming Full Wide Better Destruct
4.13 Slurry Phase Bio. Treatment Full Limited Better Destruct
4.14 Chemical Full Limited Below Average Destruct
4.18 Soil Vapor Extraction Full Limited Average Extract
4.20 Solvent Extraction Full Limited Average Extract
4.21 High Temp. Thermal Full Limited Average Extract
4.23 Incineration Full Limited Better Destruct
4.24 Low Temp. Thermal Full Wide Better Extract
4.26 Pyrolysis Pilot Limited Average Destruct
3.7 OTHER TREATMENT
4.28 Excavation/Off-Site Disp. NA Wide Average Ext./Immob.
4.30 Co-Metabolic Treatment Pilot Limited Average Destruct
4.32 Oxygen Enhance. w/Air Full Limited Better Destruct
4.34 Air Sparging Full Limited Better Extract
4.36 Dual Phase Extraction Full Limited Better Extract
4.37 Free Product Recovery Full Wide Better Extract
4.38 Hot Water or Steam Pilot Limited Better Extract
4.40 Passive Treatment Walls Pilot Limited Average Destruct
4.42 Vacuum Vapor Extraction Pilot Limited Better Extract
4.43 Bioreactors Full Limited Better Destruct
4.44 Air Stripping Full Wide Average Extract
4.47 Liquid Phase Carbon Full Wide Average Extract
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-26
· 1,2,4,5-Tetramethylbenzene · 3,3,5-Trimethylheptane
· Toluene · 2,4,4-Trimethylhexane
· 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene · 2,3,4-Trimethylhexane
· 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene · 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
· 1,2,4-Trimethyl-5- · 2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
ethylbenzene · Trans-2-butene
· 2,2,4-Trimethylheptane · Trans-2-pentene
· 2,3,4-Trimethylheptane
? 2.5.1 Properties and Behavior of Fuels

Information presented for VOCs (Subsection 2.3.1) and SVOCs (Subsection 2.4.1)
may also be appropriate for many of the fuel contaminants presented in this
subsection. As previously discussed for VOCs and SVOCs, an important
consideration when evaluating a remedy is whether the compound is halogenated or
nonhalogenated. Fuel contaminants are nonhalogenated. A halogenated compound
is one onto which a halogen (e.g., fluorine, chlorine, bromine, or iodine) has been
attached. The nature of the halogen bond and the halogen itself can significantly
affect performance of a technology or require more extensive treatment than for

Contamination by fuel contaminants in the unsaturated zone exists in four phases:

vapor in the pore spaces; sorbed to subsurface solids; dissolved in water; or as
NAPL. The nature and extent of transport are determined by the interactions among
contaminant transport properties (e.g., density, vapor pressure, viscosity, and
hydrophobicity) and the subsurface environment (e.g., geology, aquifer mineralogy,
and groundwater hydrology). Most fuel-derived contaminants are less dense than
water and can be detected as floating pools (LNAPLs) on the water table.
Typically, after a spill occurs, LNAPLs migrate vertically in the subsurface until
residual saturation depletes the liquid or until the capillary fringe above the water
table is reached. Some spreading of the bulk liquid occurs until pressure from the
infiltrating liquid develops sufficiently to penetrate to the water table. The pressure
of the infiltrating liquid pushes the spill below the surface of the water table. Bulk
liquids less dense than water spread laterally and float on the surface of the water
table, forming a mound that becomes compressed into a spreading lens.
2-27
As the plume of dissolved constituents moves away from the floating bulk liquid,
interactions with the soil particles affect dissolved concentrations. Compounds
more attracted to the aquifer material move at a slower rate than the groundwater
and are found closer to the source; compounds less attracted to the soil particles
move most rapidly and are found in the leading edge of a contaminant plume.
More volatile LNAPL compounds readily partition into the air phase. A soil gas
sample collected from an area contaminated by vapor-phase transport typically
contains relatively greater concentrations of the more volatile compounds than one
contaminated by groundwater transport. Vapor-phase transport can be followed by
subsequent dissolution in groundwater. Alternatively, aqueous-phase contaminants
with high Henry's law constants can be expected to volatilize into the pore spaces.
For compounds with vapor densities greater than air, density-driven flow of the
vapor plume may occur as a result of gas density gradients. Toluene, ethylbenzene,
xylenes and naphthalene are less dense than water and unlikely to move by density-
driven flow. However, they may be capable of diffusive transport, causing vapor
plumes to move away from residual saturation in the unsaturated zone. Residual
saturation is the portion of the liquid contaminant that remains in the pore spaces as
a result of capillary attraction after the NAPL moves through the soil.
Volatilization from contaminated groundwater also may produce a vapor plume of
compounds with high vapor pressures and high aqueous solubilities. Dissolution of
contaminants from residual saturation or bulk liquid into water may occur in either
the unsaturated or saturated portions of the subsurface with the contamination then
moving with the water. Because the solubility of fuels is relatively low,
contaminant dissolution from NAPL under laminar flow conditions typical of
aquifers is mass-transfer limited, requiring decades for dissolution and producing a
dilute wastestream of massive volume.
? 2.5.2 Common Treatment Technologies for Fuels in Soil, Sediment, and

Sludge
Common treatment technologies for fuels in soil, sediment, and sludge include
biodegradation, incineration, SVE, and low temperature thermal desorption.
Incineration is typically used when chlorinated SVOCs are also present with fuel,
and not specified for fuel-only contaminated soil, sediment, or sludge.
All types of biodegradation, both in situ or ex situ, can be used to remediate soils:
in situ biodegradation, bioventing, composting, controlled solid phase, or
landfarming. Slurry-phase biological treatment is also applicable but is less widely
used. Biodegradation uses indigenous or inoculated microorganisms (e.g., fungi,
bacteria, and other microbes) to degrade (i.e., metabolize) organic contaminants
found in soil and/or groundwater. In the presence of sufficient oxygen (aerobic
conditions), microorganisms will ultimately convert many organic contaminants to
carbon dioxide, water, and microbial cell mass. In the absence of oxygen
(anaerobic conditions), the contaminants will be ultimately metabolized to methane.
Sometimes contaminants may not be completely degraded, but only transformed to
intermediate products that may be less, equally, or more hazardous than the original
contaminant.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-28
The in situ bioremediation of soil typically involves the percolation or injection of

groundwater or uncontaminated water mixed with nutrients and saturated with
dissolved oxygen. Ex situ bioremediation typically uses tilling or continuously
mixed slurries to apply oxygen and nutrients, and is performed in a prepared bed
(liners and aeration) or reactor. Bioventing is an in situ technique that uses air
injection to aerate the soil and enhance biodegradation. The AFCEE Bioventing
Initiative currently encompasses 135 sites at 50 military installations, including one
Marine, one Army, and one Coast Guard facility. Approximately 50% of the
current systems are full-scale. As of July 1994, approximately 117 are installed and
operating. The remainder are to be installed.
Incineration uses high temperatures, 870 to 1,200 ? C (1,400 to 2,200 ? F), to

volatilize and combust (in the presence of oxygen) organic constituents in hazardous
wastes. The destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) for properly operated
incinerators exceeds the 99.99% requirement for hazardous waste and can be
operated to meet the 99.9999% requirement for PCBs and dioxins. Distinct
incinerator designs are rotary kiln, liquid injection, fluidized bed, and infrared units.
All types have been used successfully at full scale.
Soil vapor extraction (SVE) is an in situ unsaturated (vadose) zone soil

remediation technology in which a vacuum is applied to the soil to induce the
controlled flow of air and remove volatile and some semivolatile contaminants from
the soil. The gas leaving the soil may be treated to recover or destroy the
contaminants, depending on local and state air discharge regulations. Explosion-
proof equipment should be used for fuels. Vertical extraction vents are typically
used at depths of 1.5 meters (5 feet) or greater and have been successfully applied
as deep as 91 meters (300 feet). Horizontal extraction vents (installed in trenches or
horizontal borings) can be used as warranted by contaminant zone geometry, drill
rig access, or other site-specific factors.
Groundwater extraction pumps may be used to reduce groundwater upwelling

induced by the vacuum or to increase the depth of the vadose zone. Air injection
may be effective for facilitating extraction of deep contamination, contamination in
low permeability soils, and contamination in the saturated zone (see Treatment
Technology Profile 4.34, Air Sparging).
Low temperature thermal desorption (LTTD) systems are physical separation

processes and are not designed to destroy organics. Wastes are heated to between
90 and 315 ? C (200 to 600 ? F) to volatilize water and organic contaminants. A
carrier gas or vacuum system transports volatilized water and organics to the gas
treatment system. Groundwater treatment concentrates the collected contaminants
(e.g., carbon adsorption or condensation). The bed temperatures and residence
times designed into these systems will volatilize selected contaminants but will
typically not oxidize them. LTTD is a full-scale technology that has been proven
successful for remediating petroleum hydrocarbon contamination in all types of soil.
Decontaminated soil retains its physical properties and ability to support biological
activity.
? 2.5.3 Common
Water, and
Treatment
LeachateTechnologies for Fuels in Groundwater, Surface
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-29

necessary to know other subsurface information to remediate fuels in groundwater.
Treatability testing to characterize contaminant biodegradability and nutrient
content may be needed for any biodegradation technologies. A subsurface geologic
characterization would be particularly important to characterize the migration of
NAPLs. Recovery tests are usually necessary to design a product/groundwater
pumping scheme that will ensure that the nonaqueous fuel layer can be recovered
and that contaminated groundwater can be treated effectively at the design flow.
Groundwater models are also often needed to predict flow characteristics, changes
in contaminant mixes and concentrations, capture zones, and times to reach cleanup
levels.
Technologies most commonly used to treat fuels in groundwater include air

stripping, carbon adsorption, and free product recovery. These are all ex situ
treatment technologies requiring groundwater extraction.
Air stripping involves the mass transfer of volatile contaminants from water to air.
For groundwater remediation, this process is typically conducted in a packed tower
or an aeration tank. The generic packed tower air stripper includes a spray nozzle
at the top of the tower to distribute contaminated water over the packing in the
column, a fan to force air countercurrent to the water flow, and a sump at the
bottom of the tower to collect decontaminated water. Auxiliary equipment that can
be added to the basic air stripper includes automated control systems with sump
level switches and safety features such as differential pressure monitors, high sump
level switches and explosion proof components, and discharge air treatment systems
such as activated carbon units, catalytic oxidizers, or thermal oxidizers. Packed
tower air strippers are installed either as permanent installations on concrete pads,
on a skid, or on a trailer.

contaminants are adsorbed. When the concentration of contaminants in the effluent
from the bed exceeds a certain level, the carbon can be regenerated in place;
removed and regenerated at an off-site facility; or removed and disposed of.
Adsorption by activated carbon has a long history of use in treating municipal,
industrial, and hazardous wastes.
For free product recovery, undissolved liquid-phase organics are removed from
subsurface formations, either by active methods (e.g., pumping) or a passive
collection system. This process is used primarily in cases where a fuel hydrocarbon
lens is floating on the water table. The free product is generally drawn up to the
surface by a pumping system. Following recovery, it can be disposed of, re-used
directly in an operation not requiring high-purity materials, or purified prior to re-
use. Systems may be designed to recover only product, mixed product and water, or
separate streams of product and water (i.e., dual pump or dual well systems). Free
product recovery is a full-scale technology.
? 2.6 INORGANICS
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-30
Sites where inorganic contaminants may be found include artillery and small arms
impact areas, battery disposal area, burn pits, chemical disposal areas,
contaminated marine sediments, disposal wells and leach fields, electroplating/metal
finishing shops, firefighting training areas, landfills and burial pits, leaking
collection and system sanitary lines, leaking storage tanks, radioactive and mixed
waste disposal areas, oxidation ponds/lagoons, paint stripping and spray booth
areas, sand blasting areas, surface impoundments, and vehicle maintenance areas.
Potentially applicable remediation technologies are presented in Table 2-4. Typical
inorganic contaminants encountered at many sites include the following:
· Metals
- Aluminum - Magnesium
- Antimony - Manganese
- Arsenic* - Mercury
- Barium - Metallic cyanides
- Beryllium - Nickel
- Bismuth - Potassium
- Boron - Selenium
- Cadmium - Silver
- Calcium - Sodium
- Chromium - Thallium
- Cobalt - Tin
- Copper - Titanium
- Iron - Vanadium
- Lead - Zinc
· Radionuclides
- Americium-241 - Radium-224, -226

- Cesium-134, -137 - Strontium-90
- Cobalt-60 - Technetium-99
- Europium-152, -154, -155 - Thorium-228, -230, -232
- Plutonium-238, -239 - Uranium-234, -235, -2382
· Other inorganic contaminants
- Asbestos
- Cyanide
- Fluorine
* Although arsenic is not a true metal, it is included here because it is classified

as one of the eight RCRA metals.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-31
TREATMENT OF INORGANICS
NOTE: Specific site and contaminant characteristics may limit the applicability and effectiveness of any
of the technologies and treatments listed below. This matrix is optimistic in nature and should always be used in conjunction
(Text Section and Title) Scale Rating Applicability* Function*
4.7 Solidification/Stabilization Full Limited Better Immob.
4.5 Soil Flushing Pilot Limited Better Extract
4.9 Vitrification Pilot Limited Better Immob.
4.14 Chemical Reduction/Oxidation Full Limited Better Extract
4.19 Solidification/Stabilization Full Wide Better Immob.
4.27 Vitrification Full Limited Better Immob.
3.7 OTHER TREATMENT
4.28 Excavation/Off-Site Disp. NA Wide Average Extract/Immob.
4.42 Vacuum Vapor Extraction Pilot Limited Average Extract
4.45 Filtration Full Wide Better Extract
4.46 Ion Exchange Full Wide Better Extract
4.48 Precipitation Full Wide Better Extract
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-32
? 2.6.1 Properties and Behavior of Inorganics

Often, specific technologies may be ruled out, or the list of potential technologies
may be immediately narrowed, on the basis of the presence or absence of one or
more of the chemical groups. The relative amounts of each may tend to favor
certain technologies. Metals may be found sometimes in the elemental form, but
more often they are found as salts mixed in the soil. At the present time, treatment
options for radioactive materials are probably limited to volume
reduction/concentration and immobilization. Asbestos fibers require special care to
prevent their escape during handling and disposal; permanent containment must be
provided. Properties and behavior of specific inorganics and inorganic contaminant
groups are discussed below.
2.6.1.1 Metals
Unlike the hazardous organic constituents, metals cannot be degraded or readily
detoxified. The presence of metals among wastes can pose a long-term
environmental hazard. The fate of the metal depends on its physical and chemical
properties, the associated waste matrix, and the soil. Significant downward
transportation of metals from the soil surface occurs when the metal retention
capacity of the soil is overloaded, or when metals are solubilized (e.g., by low pH).
As the concentration of metals exceeds the ability of the soil to retain them, the
metals will travel downward with the leaching waters. Surface transport through
dust and erosion of soils are common transport mechanisms. The extent of vertical
contamination intimately relates to the soil solution and surface chemistry.
Properties and behavior of specific metals are discussed below:
· Arsenic: Arsenic (As) exists in the soil environment as arsenate, As(V), or as

arsenite, As(III). Both are toxic; however, arsenite is the more toxic form, and
arsenate is the most common form. (Note: Arsenic is not a true metal; however,
it is included here as it is one of the eight RCRA metals.)
The behavior of arsenate in soil seems analogous to that of phosphate because of

their chemical similarity. Like phosphate, arsenate is fixed to soil, and thus is
relatively immobile. Iron (Fe), aluminum (Al), and calcium (Ca) influence this
fixation by forming insoluble complexes with arsenate. The presence of iron in
soil is most effective in controlling arsenate's mobility. Arsenite compounds are
4 to 10 times more soluble than arsenate compounds.
The adsorption of arsenite is also strongly pH-dependent. One study found

increased adsorption of As(III) by two clays over the pH range of 3 to 9 while
another study found the maximum adsorption of As(III) by iron oxide occurred
at pH 7.
Under anaerobic conditions, arsenate may be reduced to arsenite. Arsenite is

more subject to leaching because of its higher solubility.
· Chromium: Chromium (Cr) can exist in soil in three forms: the trivalent
+3 -2 -2
Cr(III) form, Cr , and the hexavalent Cr(VI) forms, (Cr2O7) and (CrO4) .
Hexavalent chromium is the major chromium species used in industry; wood
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-33
preservatives commonly contain chromic acid, a Cr(VI) oxide. The two forms of
hexavalent chromium are pH dependent; hexavalent chromium as a chromate ion
-2 -2
(CrO4) predominates above a pH of 6; dichromate ion (Cr2O7) predominates
below a pH of 6. The dichromate ions present a greater health hazard than
chromate ions, and both Cr(VI) ions are more toxic than Cr(III) ions.
Because of its anionic nature, Cr(VI) associates only with soil surfaces at
positively charged exchange sites, the number of which decrease with increasing
soil pH. Iron and aluminum oxide surfaces adsorb the chromate ion at an acidic
or neutral pH.
Chromium (III) is the stable form of chromium in soil. Cr(III) hydroxy

compounds precipitate at pH 4.5 and complete precipitation of the hydroxy
species occurs at pH 5.5. In contrast to Cr(VI), Cr(III) is relatively immobile in
soil. Chromium (III) does, however, form complexes with soluble organic
ligands, which may increase its mobility.
Regardless of pH and redox potential, most Cr(VI) in soil is reduced to Cr(III).

Soil organic matter and Fe(II) minerals donate the electrons in this reaction. The
reduction reaction in the presence of organic matter proceeds at a slow rate
under normal environmental pH and temperatures, but the rate of reaction
increases with decreasing soil pH.
· Copper: Soil retains copper (Cu) through exchange and specific adsorption.
Copper adsorbs to most soil constituents more strongly than any other toxic
metal, except lead (Pb). Copper, however, has a high affinity to soluble organic
ligands; the formation of these complexes may greatly increase its mobility in
soil.
· Lead: Lead is a heavy metal that exists in three oxidation states: O, +2(II), and
+4(IV). Lead is generally the most widespread and concentrated contaminant
present at a lead battery recycling site (i.e., battery breaker or secondary lead
smelter).
Lead tends to accumulate in the soil surface, usually within 3 to 5 centimeters of

the surface. Concentrations decrease with depth. Insoluble lead sulfide is
typically immobile in soil as long as reducing conditions are maintained. Lead
can also be biomethylated, forming tetramethyl and tetraethyl lead. These
compounds may enter the atmosphere by volatilization.
The capacity of soil to adsorb lead increases with pH, cation exchange capacity,
organic carbon content, soil/water Eh (redox potential), and phosphate levels.
Lead exhibits a high degree of adsorption on clay-rich soil. Only a small percent
of the total lead is leachable; the major portion is usually solid or adsorbed onto
soil particles. Surface runoff, which can transport soil particles containing
adsorbed lead, facilitates migration and subsequent desorption from
contaminated soils. On the other hand, groundwater (typically low in suspended
soils and leachable lead salts) does not normally create a major pathway for lead
migration. Lead compounds are soluble at low pH and at high pH, such as those
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-34
induced by solidification/stabilization treatment. Several other metals are also

amphoteric, which strongly affects leaching. If battery breaking activities have
occurred on-site, and the battery acid was disposed of on-site, elevated
concentrations of lead and other metals may have migrated to groundwater.
· Mercury: In soils and surface waters, volatile forms (e.g., metallic mercury and
dimethylmercury) evaporate to the atmosphere, whereas solid forms partition to
particulates. Mercury exists primarily in the mercuric and mercurous forms as a
number of complexes with varying water solubilities. In soils and sediments,
sorption is one of the most important controlling pathways for removal of
mercury from solution; sorption usually increases with increasing pH. Other
removal mechanisms include flocculation, co-precipitation with sulfides, and
organic complexation. Mercury is strongly sorbed to humic materials.
Inorganic mercury sorbed to soils is not readily desorbed; therefore, freshwater
and marine sediments are important repositories for inorganic mercury.
· Zinc: Clay carbonates, or hydrous oxides, readily adsorb zinc (Zn). The
greatest percentage of total zinc in polluted soil and sediment is associated with
iron (Fe) and manganese (Mn) oxides. Rainfall removes zinc from soil because
the zinc compounds are highly soluble. As with all cationic metals, zinc
adsorption increases with pH. Zinc hydrolyzes at a pH >7.7. These hydrolyzed
species strongly adsorb to soil surfaces. Zinc forms complexes with inorganic
and organic ligands, which will affect its adsorption reactions with the soil
surface.
2.6.1.2 Radionuclides
For the purposes of this document, radionuclides should be considered to have
properties similar to those of other heavy metals. (See the beginning of Subsection
2.6 for a list of typical radionuclides.) This does not imply that all radionuclides are
heavy metals, but that the majority of sites requiring remediation of radioactively
contaminated materials are contaminated with radionuclides that have similar
properties. Like metals, the contaminants of concern are typically nonvolatile and
less soluble in water than some other contaminants. However, the solubility and
volatility of individual radionuclides will vary and should be evaluated for each
wastestream being remediated. For example, cesium-137 is more volatile than
uranium-238 and some cesium may volatilize, requiring off-gas treatment, when
treated with processes at elevated temperatures (e.g., vitrification). Similarly, the
mobility of radium-226, which is generally soluble in water under environmental
conditions, will be greater than that of thorium-230, which is much less soluble.
Unlike organic contaminants (and similar to metals), radionuclides cannot be

destroyed or degraded; therefore, remediation technologies applicable to
radionuclides involve separation, concentration/volume reduction, and/or
immobilization. Some special considerations when remediating sites contaminated
with radionuclides include the following:
· Implementation of remediation technologies should consider the potential for

radiological exposure (internal and external). The degree of hazard is based on
the radionuclide(s) present and the type and energy of radiation emitted (i.e.,
alpha particles, beta particles, gamma radiation, and neutron radiation). The
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-35
design should take into account exposure considerations and the principles of
keeping exposures as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).
· Because radionuclides are not destroyed, ex situ techniques will require eventual
disposal of residual radioactive wastes. These waste forms must meet disposal
site waste acceptance criteria.
· There are different disposal requirements associated with different types of

radioactive waste. Remediation technologies addressed in this document are
generally applicable for low-level radioactive waste (LLW), transuranic waste
(TRU), and/or uranium mill tailings. The technologies are not applicable to
spent nuclear fuel and, for the most part, are not applicable for high-level
radioactive waste.
· Some remediation technologies result in the concentration of radionuclides. By

concentrating radionuclides, it is possible to change the classification of the
waste, which impacts requirements for disposal. For example, concentrating
radionuclides could result in LLW becoming TRU waste (if TRU radionuclides
were concentrated to greater than 100 nanocuries/gm). Also, LLW
classifications (e.g., Class A, B, or C for commercial LLW) could change due to
the concentration of radionuclides. Waste classification requirements, for
disposal of residual waste (if applicable), should be considered when evaluating
remediation technologies.
· Disposal capacity for radioactive and mixed waste is limited. For example,
commercial LLW disposal capacity will no longer be available for many out-of-
compact (regions without a licensed LLW disposal facility) generators because
the disposal facility in Barnwell, SC, closed (to out-of-compact generators) on
30 June 1994. Currently there is only one disposal facility (Envirocare of Utah,
Inc.) licensed to accept mixed waste (i.e., low-activity mixed LLW and
hazardous waste) for disposal. Mixed waste can be treated to address the
hazardous characteristics of the soil, thereby allowing the waste to be addressed
as solely a radioactive waste.
? 2.6.2 Common Treatment Technologies for Inorganics in Soil, Sediment,

and Sludge
The most commonly used treatment technologies for inorganics in soil, sediment,
and sludge include solidification/stabilization (S/S), and excavation and off-site
disposal. These treatment technologies are described briefly below.
Solidification processes produce monolithic blocks of waste with high structural

integrity. The contaminants do not necessarily interact chemically with the
solidification reagents (typically cement/ash) but are mechanically locked within the
solidified matrix. Stabilization methods usually involve the addition of materials
such as fly ash, which limit the solubility or mobility of waste constituents— even
though the physical handling characteristics of the waste may not be changed or
improved. Methods involving S/S techniques are often proposed in RODs and
RI/FSs for lead battery recycling sites. Solidification/stabilization of contaminated
soil can be conducted either in situ or ex situ. In situ S/S techniques are now
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-36
considered innovative and are discussed in Section 4.
Excavation and removal of contaminated soil (with or without stabilization) to a

landfill have been performed extensively at many sites. Landfilling of hazardous
materials, especially hazardous wastes, is becoming increasingly difficult and
expensive as a result of growing regulatory control, and may be cost-prohibitive for
sites with large volumes, greater depths, or complex hydrogeologic environments.
In addition, disposal capacity for radioactive and mixed waste is extremely limited.
Determining the feasibility of off-site disposal requires knowledge of land disposal
restrictions and other regulations developed by state governments.
? 2.6.3 Common Treatment Technologies for Inorganics in Groundwater,

Surface Water, and Leachate
necessary to know other subsurface information to remediate inorganics in
groundwater, surface water, and leachate. Treatability studies are usually
the design flow. A subsurface geologic characterization would be particularly
important to characterize the effects of adsorption and other processes of
attenuation. Groundwater models are also often needed to predict flow
characteristics, changes in contaminant mixes and concentrations, and times to
reach action levels.
Precipitation, filtration, and ion exchange are widely used ex situ treatment
technologies for inorganics in groundwater and are discussed in the following
paragraphs. In situ treatment technologies are used less frequently.
The combination of precipitation/flocculation and sedimentation is a well-

established technology for metals and radionuclides removal from groundwater.
This technology pumps groundwater through extraction wells and then treats it to
precipitate lead and other heavy metals. Typical removal of metals employs
precipitation with hydroxides, carbonates, or sulfides. Hydroxide precipitation with
lime or sodium hydroxide is the most common choice. Generally, the precipitating
agent is added to water in a rapid-mixing tank along with flocculating agents such
as alum, lime, and/or various iron salts. This mixture then flows to a flocculation
chamber that agglomerates particles, which are then separated from the liquid phase
in a sedimentation chamber. Other physical processes, such as filtration, may
follow.
Metal sulfides exhibit significantly lower solubility than their hydroxide

counterparts, achieve more complete precipitation, and provide stability over a
broad pH range. At a pH of 4.5, sulfide precipitation can achieve the EPA-
recommended standard for potable water. Sulfide precipitation, however, can be
considerably more expensive than hydroxide precipitation, as a result of higher
chemical costs and increased process complexity; also, there are safety concerns
associated with the possibility of H2S emissions. The precipitated metals would be
handled in a manner similar to contaminated soils. The supernatant would be
discharged to a nearby stream, a POTW, or recharged to upstream of site aquifer.
Selection of the most suitable precipitant or flocculent, optimum pH, rapid mix
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-37
requirements, and most efficient dosages is determined through laboratory jar test
studies.
Filtration isolates solid particles by running a fluid stream through a porous

medium. The driving force is either gravity or a pressure differential across the
filtration medium. Pressure differentiated filtration techniques include separation by
centrifugal force, vacuum, or positive pressure. The chemicals are not destroyed;
they are merely concentrated, making reclamation possible. Parallel installation of
double filters is recommended so groundwater extraction or injection pumps do not
have to stop operating when filters backwashed.
Ion exchange is a process whereby the toxic ions are removed from the aqueous
phase in an exchange with relatively innocuous ions (e.g., NaCl) held by the ion
exchange material. Modern ion exchange resins consist of synthetic organic
materials containing ionic functional groups to which exchangeable ions are
attached. These synthetic resins are structurally stable and exhibit a high exchange
capacity. They can be tailored to show selectivity towards specific ions. The
exchange reaction is reversible and concentration-dependent; the exchange resins are
regenerable for reuse. The regeneration step leads to a 2 to 10% wastestream that
must be treated separately.
All metallic elements present as soluble species, either anionic or cationic, can be
removed by ion exchange. A practical influent upper concentration limit for ion
exchange is about 2,000 mg/L. A higher concentration results in rapid exhaustion
of the resin and inordinately high regeneration costs.
? 2.7 EXPLOSIVES
Sites where explosive contaminants may be found include artillery/impact areas,
contaminated marine sediments, disposal wells, leach fields, landfills, burial pits,
and TNT washout lagoons. Potentially applicable remediation technologies are
presented in Table 2-5. Typical explosive contaminants encountered at many sites
include the following:
· TNT · Picrates
· RDX · TNB
· Tetryl · DNB
· 2,4-DNT · Nitroglycerine
· 2,6-DNT · Nitrocellulose
· HMX · AP
· Nitroaromatics · Nitroglycerine

TREATMENT OF EXPLOSIVES

MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-38
4.1 Biodegradation Pilot Limited Better Destruct

4.3 White Rot Fungus Pilot Limited Better Destruct
4.10 Composting Full Limited Better Destruct
4.11 Cont. Solid Phase Bio. Treat. Pilot Limited Better Destruct
4.12 Landfarming Pilot Limited Average Destruct
4.13 Slurry Phase Bio. Treatment Pilot Limited Better Destruct
3.5 EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT (assuming excavation)
4.17 Soil Washing Pilot Limited Better Extract
4.20 Solvent Extraction Pilot Limited Better Extract
4.22 Hot Gas Decontamination Pilot Limited Better Destruct
4.23 Incineration Full Wide Better Destruct
4.24 Low Temp. Thermal Desorption Full Limited Better Destruct
4.25 Open Burn/Detonation Pilot Wide Average Destruct
3.7 OTHER TREATMENT
4.28 Excavation/Off-Site Disp. NA Limited Average Extract/Immob.
4.30 Co-Metabolic Treatment Pilot Limited Average Destruct
4.31 Nutrient Enhancement Pilot Limited Average Destruct
4.32 Oxygen Enhance. Air Pilot Limited Average Destruct
4.33 Oxygen Enhance. w/H2O2 Pilot Limited Average Destruct
4.41 Slurry Walls Full Limited Better Immobilize
3.10 EX SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
4.43 Bioreactors Pilot Limited Average Destruct
4.45 Filtration Full Limited Average Extract
4.47 Liquid Phase Carbon Adsorption Full Wide Better Extract
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-39
? 2.7.1 Properties and Behavior of Explosives

Information presented for SVOCs (Subsection 2.4.1) may also be appropriate for
many of the contaminants presented in this subsection.
The term "explosive waste" commonly is used to refer to propellants, explosives,

and pyrotechnics (PEP), which technically fall into the more general category of
energetic materials. These materials are susceptible to initiation, or self-sustained
energy release, when present in sufficient quantities and exposed to stimuli such as
heat, shock, friction, chemical incompatibility, or electrostatic discharge. Each of
these materials reacts differently to the aforementioned stimuli; all will burn, but
explosives and propellants can detonate under certain conditions (e.g., confinement).
Figure 2-1 outlines the various categories of energetic materials. The emphasis of
this document is on soil and groundwater contaminated with explosives rather than
propellants, pyrotechnics, or munitions.
Explosives are classified as primary or secondary based on their susceptibility to

initiation. Primary explosives, which include lead azide and lead styphnate, are
highly susceptible to initiation. Primary explosives often are referred to as initiating
explosives because they can be used to ignite secondary explosives.
Secondary explosives, which include TNT, cyclo-1,3,5-trimethylene-2,4,6-

trinitramine (RDX or cyclonite), high melting explosives (HMX), and tetryl, are
much more prevalent at military sites than are primary explosives. Because they are
formulated to detonate only under specific circumstances, secondary explosives
often are used as main charge or bolstering explosives. Secondary explosives can
be loosely categorized into melt-pour explosives, which are based on TNT, and
plastic-bonded explosives (PBX), which are based on a binder and crystalline
explosive such as RDX. Secondary explosives also can be classified according to
their chemical structure as nitroaromatics, which include TNT, and nitramines,
which include RDX. In the TNT molecule, NO2 groups are bonded to the aromatic
ring; in the RDX molecule, NO2 groups are bonded to nitrogen.
FIGURE 2-1 CATEGORIES OF ENERGETIC MATERIALS
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-40
Propellants include both rocket and gun propellants. Most rocket propellants are
either Hazard Class 1.3 composites, which are based on a rubber binder, and
ammonium perchlorate (AP) oxidizer, and a powdered aluminum (Al) fuel; or
Hazard Class 1.1 composites, which are based on a nitrate ester, usually
nitroglycerine (NG), nitrocellulose (NC), HMX, AP, or polymer-bound low NC. If
a binder is used, it usually is an isocyanate-cured polyester or polyether. Some
propellants contain combustion modifiers, such as lead oxide.
Gun propellants usually are single base (NC), double base (NC and NG), or triple
base [NC, NG, and nitroguanidine (NQ)]. Some of the newer, lower vulnerability
gun propellants contain binders and crystalline explosives and thus are similar to
PBX.
Pyrotechnics include illuminating flares, signaling flares, colored and white smoke
generators, tracers, incendiary delays, fuses, and photo-flash compounds.
Pyrotechnics usually are composed of an inorganic oxidizer and metal powder in a
binder. Illuminating flares contain sodium nitrate, magnesium, and a binder.
Signaling flares contain barium, strontium, or other metal nitrates.
Safety precautions must be taken at sites contaminated with explosive wastes to

avoid initiation. USAEC, which has been involved in sampling and treating
explosives waste sites since the early 1980s, has developed protocols for identifying
sites that require explosives safety precautions and for handling explosives wastes at
these sites.
Under its current protocol, USAEC can determine quickly and inexpensively
whether materials are susceptible to initiation and propagation by analyzing the
composition of samples from the site. According to the deflagration-to-detonation
test, soils containing more than 12% secondary explosives by weight are susceptible
to initiation by flame; according to the shock gap test, soils containing more than
15% secondary explosives by weight are susceptible to initiation by shock. As a
conservative limit, USAEC considers all soils containing more than 10% secondary
explosives by weight to be susceptible to initiation and propagation and exercises a
number of safety precautions when sampling and treating these soils. Sampling and
treatment precautions are exercised when handling soils that contain even minute
quantities of primary explosives.
Work, sampling, and health and safety plans for explosives waste sites should
incorporate safety provisions that normally would not be included in work and
sampling plans for other sites. The most important safety precaution is to minimize
exposure, which involves minimizing the number of workers exposed to hazardous
situations, the duration of exposure, and the degree of hazard.
? 2.7.2 Common Treatment Technologies for Explosives in Soil, Sediment,

and Sludge
The U.S. Army operates explosives manufacturing plants to produce various forms
of explosives used in military ordnance. Manufacturing activities at such plants
result in the production of organic wastewaters that contain both explosive residues
and other organic chemicals. Past waste handling practices at such plants
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-41
commonly included the use of unlined lagoons or pits for containing process waters.
As a result of these past practices, some explosive residues may leach through the
soil and contaminate groundwater.
The U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) and
the Missouri River Division (MRD) have been involved with numerous explosives-
contaminated sites. They have compiled data on the frequency of nitroaromatics
and nitramines detected in explosives-contaminated soils from Army sites. TNT is
the most common contaminant, occurring in approximately 80% of the soil samples
found to be contaminated with explosives. Trinitrobenzene (TNB), which is a
photochemical decomposition product of TNT, was found in between 40 and 50%
of these soils. Dinitrobenzene (DNB), 2,4-dinitrotoluene (2,4-DNT), and 2,6-DNT,
which are impurities in production-grade TNT, were found in less than 40% of the
soils.
As mentioned earlier, safety concerns are an important consideration when

discussing remediation of explosives-contaminated soils, sediments, and sludges.
Spark and static electricity hazards must be eliminated. Nonsparking tools,
conductive and grounded plastic, and no-screw tops, which were developed for
manufacturing explosives, are standard equipment at explosive waste sites. For
example, nonsparking beryllium tools are used instead of ferrous tools.
If contamination is above the 10% limit in some areas of a site, the contaminated
material could be blended and screened to dilute the contamination and produce a
homogenous mixture below the 10% limit. This blending is not by itself a remedial
action but a safety precaution; soils containing less than 10% secondary explosives
by weight occasionally experience localized detonations, but generally resist
widespread propagation. Foreign objects and unexploded ordnance within the
contaminated soil often impede the blending process and require specialized
unexploded ordnance management procedures.
Once blending is completed, soil treatments such as incineration and bioremediation

can proceed. Equipment used in treatment must have sealed bearings and shielded
electrical junction boxes. Equipment also must be decontaminated frequently to
prevent the buildup of explosive dust.
Biological, thermal, and other (such as reuse/recycle) treatment technologies are

available to treat explosives-contaminated soils. These technologies are briefly
discussed below.
2.7.2.1 Biological Treatment Technologies

Biological treatment, or bioremediation, is a developing technology that uses
microorganisms to degrade organic contaminants into less hazardous compounds.
Bioremediation is most effective for dilute solutions of explosives and propellants.
TNT in the crystalline form is difficult to treat biologically.
TNT degrades under aerobic conditions into monoamine-, diamino-, hydroxylamine-

DNT, and tetranitro-azoxynitrotoluenes. RDX and HMX degrade into carbon
dioxide and water under anaerobic conditions. Researchers have not identified any
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-42
specific organisms that are particularly effective for degrading explosives waste; an
indigenous consortium of organisms usually affects the degradation.
DOD currently is developing or implementing five biological treatments for

explosives-contaminated soils: aqueous-phase bioreactor treatment; composting,
land farming, and white rot fungus treatment, which are solid-phase treatments; and
in situ biological treatment.
Aqueous Phase Bioreactor Treatment: DOD is considering two types of

aqueous-phase bioreactors for the treatment of explosive contaminants. The first is
the lagoon slurry reactor, which allows contaminants to remain in a lagoon, be
mixed with nutrients and water, and degrade under anaerobic conditions. The
lagoon slurry reactor is still in the development stage. The second is the
aboveground slurry reactor, which is either constructed on-site or purchased as a
package plant.
Aqueous-phase bioreactors provide good process control, can be configured in

several treatment trains to treat a variety of wastes, and potentially can achieve very
low contaminant concentrations. A drawback of bioreactor treatment is that, unlike
composting systems which bind contaminants to humic material, bioreactors
accumulate the products of biotransformation. In addition, bioreactors have been
shown to remediate explosives only at laboratory scale, so the cost of full-scale
bioreactors will have to incorporate a variety of safety features that will add to their
total cost.
Composting: DOD has been evaluating composting systems to treat explosives

waste since 1982. To date, composting has been shown to degrade TNT, RDX,
HMX, DNT, tetryl, and nitrocellulose in soils and sludges. The main advantage of
this technology is that, unlike incineration, composting generates an enriched
product that can sustain vegetation. After cleanup levels are achieved, the compost
material can be returned to the site. Another advantage is that composting is
effective for a range of wastes. The cost of composting can be limited, however, by
the level of indigenous organisms in contaminated soil and the local availability of
amendment mixtures. In addition, composting requires long treatment periods for
some wastestreams, and composting of unfamiliar contaminants potentially can
generate toxic byproducts.
Composting methods fall into three categories: static-pile composting; mechanically

agitated, in-vessel composting; and windrow composting. In static-pile composting,
contaminated material is excavated, placed in a pile under protective shelter, and
mixed with readily degradable carbon sources. The pile undergoes forced aeration
to maintain aerobic and thermophilic (55 to 60 ? C or 131 to 140 ? F) conditions,
which foster the growth of microorganisms. Bulking agents, such as cow manure
and vegetable waste and/or wood chips, can be added to enhance biodegradation. In
mechanically agitated, in-vessel composting, contaminated material is aerated and
blended with carbon-source materials in a mechanical composter. These devices
have been used at municipal sewage treatment facilities and applied to explosives
waste. Windrow composting is similar to static-pile composting except that
compost is aerated by a mechanical mixing vehicle, rather than a forced air system.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-43
Land Farming: Land farming has been used extensively to treat soils contaminated
with petroleum hydrocarbons, pentachlorophenol (PCP), and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), and potentially could be used to treat low to medium
concentrations of explosives as well. In land farming, soils are excavated to
treatment plots and periodically tilled to mix in nutrients, moisture, and bacteria. In
one pilot study at an explosives waste site in Hercules, California, land farming
failed to achieve the target cleanup levels of 30-ppm TNT, 5-ppm DNT, and 5-ppm
DNB. The study achieved a 30 to 40% contaminant degradation.
White Rot Fungus Treatment: White rot fungus, Phanerochaete chrysosporium,

has been evaluated more extensively than any other fungal species for remediating
explosives-contaminated soil. Although white rot has been reported in laboratory-
scale settings using pure cultures (Berry and Boyd, 1985; Fernando et al., 1990), a
number of factor increase the difficulty of using this technology for full-scale
remediation. These factors include competition from native bacterial populations,
toxicity inhibition, chemical sorption, and the inability to meet risk-based cleanup
levels.
In bench-scale studies of mixed fungal and bacterial systems, most of the reported
degradation of TNT is attributable to native bacterial populations (Lohr, 1993;
McFarland et al., 1990). High TNT concentrations in soil also can inhibit growth
of white rot fungus. One study suggested that Phanerochaete chrysosporium was
incapable of growing in soils contaminated with 20 ppm or more of TNT. In
addition, some reports indicate that TNT losses reported in white rot fungus studies
can be attributed to adsorption of TNT onto the fungus and soil amendments, such
as corn cobs and straw.
In Situ Biological Treatment: In situ treatments can be less expensive than other
technologies and produce low contaminant concentrations. The available data
suggest, however, that in situ treatment of explosives might create more mobile
intermediates during biodegradation. In addition, biodegradation of explosive
contaminants typically involves metabolism with an added nutrient source, which is
difficult to deliver in an in situ environment. Mixing often affects the rate and
performance of explosives degradation. Finally, effectiveness of in situ treatment is
difficult to verify both during and after treatment.
2.7.2.2 Thermal Treatment Technologies

Incineration: Incineration processes can be used to treat the following
wastestreams: explosive-contaminated soil and debris, explosives with other
organic or metals, initiating explosives, some bulk explosives, unexploded ordnance,
bulk explosive waste, and pyrophoric waste. In addition, incineration can be
applied to sites with a mixture of media, such as sand, clay, water, and sludge,
provided the media can be fed to the incinerator and heated for a sufficient period of
time. With the approval of the DOD Explosives Safety Board, the Army considers
incineration of materials containing less than 10% explosives by weight to be a
nonexplosive operation. Soil with less than 10% explosives by weight has been
shown by USAEC to be nonreactive; that is, not to propagate a detonation
throughout the mass of soil. (The military explosives to which this limit applies are
secondary explosives such as TNT and RDX and their manufacturing byproducts).
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-44
The Army primarily uses three types of incineration devices: the rotary kiln
incinerator, deactivation furnace, and contaminated waste processor.
The rotary kiln incinerator is used primarily to treat explosives-contaminated

soils. In rotary kiln incineration, soils are fed into a primary combustion chamber,
or rotary kiln, where organic constituents are destroyed. The temperature of gases
in the primary chamber ranges from 427 to 649 ? C (800 to 1,200 ? F), and the
temperature of soils ranges from 316 to 427 ? C (600 to 800 ? F). Retention time in
the primary chamber, which is varied by changing the rotation speed of the kiln, is
approximately 30 minutes. Off gases from the primary chamber pass into a
secondary combustion chamber, which destroys any residual organics. Gases from
the secondary combustion chamber pass into a quench tank where they are cooled
from approximately 2,000 to 200 ? C (3,600 to 400 ? F). From the quench tank,
gases pass through a Venturi scrubber and a series of baghouse filters, which
remove particulates prior to release from the stack. The treated product of rotary
kiln incineration is ash (or treated soil), which drops from the primary combustion
chamber after organic contaminants have been destroyed. This product is routed
into a wet quench or a water spray to remoisturize it, then transported to an interim
storage area pending receipt of chemical analytical results.
The deactivation furnace is also referred to as Army Peculiar Equipment (APE)

1236 because it is used almost exclusively by the Army to deactivate large
quantities of small arms cartridges, and 50-caliber machine gun ammunition, mines,
and grenades. The deactivation furnace is similar to the rotary kiln incinerator
except it is equipped with a thick-walled primary combustion chamber capable of
withstanding small detonations. Deactivation furnaces do not have secondary
combustion chambers because they are intended not to completely destroy the
vaporized explosives but to render the munitions unreactive. Most deactivation
furnaces are equipped with air pollution control equipment to limit lead emissions.
The operating temperature of deactivation furnaces is approximately 650 to 820 ? C
(1,200 to 1,500 ? F).
The contaminated waste processor handles materials, such as surface-

contaminated debris, that are lighter and less reactive than those processed in the
deactivation furnace. Contaminated waste processors are thin-walled, stationary
ovens that heat contaminated materials to about 600 ? C (1,100 ? F) for 3 to 4 hours.
The purpose of this process is not to destroy contaminated debris but to sufficiently
lower contaminant levels through volatilization to meet Army safety standards.
USAEC currently is helping to develop standardized time and temperature
processing requirements to meet these safety standards.
Open Burn/Open Detonation: Open burn (OB) and open detonation (OD)
operations are conducted to destroy unserviceable, unstable, or unusable munitions
and explosive materials. In OB operations, explosives or munitions are destroyed
by self-sustained combustion, which is ignited by an external source, such as flame,
heat, or a detonation wave. In OD operations, detonable explosives and munitions
are destroyed by a detonation initiated by a disposal charge. OB/OD operations
require regulatory permits. These permits must be obtained from the appropriate
regulatory agency on a case-by-case basis.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-45
OB/OD operations can destroy many types of explosives, pyrotechnics, and

propellants. OB areas must be able to withstand accidental detonation of any or all
explosives being destroyed, unless the characteristic of the materials involved is
such that orderly burning without detonation can be ensured. Personnel with this
type of knowledge must be consulted before any attempt is made at OB disposal,
especially if primary explosives are present in any quantity.
OB and OD can be initiated either by electric or burning ignition systems. In

general, electric systems are preferable because they provide better control over the
timing of the initiation. In an electric system, electric current heats a bridge wire,
which ignites a primary explosive or pyrotechnic to, in turn, ignite or detonate the
material slated to be burned or detonated. If necessary, safety fuses, which consist
of propellants wrapped in plastic weather stripping, are used to initiate the burn or
detonation.
2.7.2.3 Other Treatment Technologies

Reuse/Recycle: Recovery and reuse technologies for energetic materials, including
both explosives and propellants, should be considered at explosives waste sites for
several reasons. First, new recovery methods and potential uses for reclaimed
explosive materials are rapidly developing. Second, recovery/reuse options reduce
overall remediation costs by eliminating destruction costs and allowing the value of
reclaimed materials to be recovered. Finally, EPA's treatment hierarchy, which is
based on environmental considerations, favors recovery/reuse options over
destruction technologies.
Soils and sludges contaminated with energetic materials present handling problems
during recovery and reuse operations. USAEC has established a guideline that soils
containing greater than 10% energetic materials by weight should be considered
explosive during handling and transportation. As a general rule, soils and sludges
containing less than 10% energetic materials by weight pass USAEC's nonreactivity
tests. Reuse/recycle options are more feasible for contaminated soils and sludges
meeting the nonreactivity criteria because they can be removed, transported, and
handled using conventional equipment, which could provide a substantial cost
savings.
Solvent Extraction: Solvent extraction is a technology that the Army originally

determined to be infeasible for treating explosives-contaminated soils. The
technology, however, might have potential for treating these soils if a few lingering
technical issues can be resolved. In 1982, the Army conducted laboratory-scale
solvent extraction on explosives-contaminated lagoon samples from a number of
sites. Each sample was washed with a solution of 90% acetone and 10% water.
This process achieved greater than 99% contaminant removals.
In 1985, the Army conducted a pilot-scale engineering analysis to determine the

feasibility of full-scale solvent extraction. This analysis indicated that, for solvent
extraction to be economically feasible, the number of required washes would have to
be reduced, and acetone would have to be recovered and reused. Currently, the only
available technology for recovering acetone is distillation, which exposes acetone to
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-46
heat and pressure. Exposing a solvent that has been used to extract explosive
contaminants to heat and pressure raises serious safety considerations. In fact, the
distillation column used to recover acetone often is referred to as an "acetone
rocket." Nevertheless, the Army believes that full-scale solvent extraction would be
feasible if a safe, efficient, alternative recovery method were developed.
Soil Washing: A soil washing procedure, termed the Lurgi Process, currently is
being developed in Stadtalendorf, Germany. Although no data have been published
on the effectiveness of this process, initial reports suggest that the process can
reduce levels of explosive contamination in soils to low ppm levels. As with all soil
washing technologies, the Lurgi Process produces secondary wastes, such as
washwater and concentrated explosives.
In the Lurgi Process, contaminated soils are excavated and processed in an attrition
reactor, which detaches the explosive material from the soil particles. The
remaining material undergoes a second process, which separates clean from
contaminated particles. Clean particles are dewatered, separated into heavy and
light materials, and returned to the site. Contaminated particles undergo a final
series of washing, separation, and chemical extraction processes to remove any
remaining clean particles. Finally, the contaminated material is clarified and
concentrated before being disposed of or treated.
? 2.7.3 Common Treatment Technologies for Explosives in Groundwater,

Surface Water, and Leachate
Explosives-contaminated process waste waters can be subdivided into two
categories: red water, which comes strictly from the manufacture of TNT, and pink
water, which includes any washwater associated with load, assemble, and pack
(LAP) operations or with the demilitarization of munitions involving contact with
finished explosive. Despite their names, red and pink water cannot be identified by
color. Both are clear when they emerge from their respective processes and
subsequently turn pink, light red, dark red, or black when exposed to light. The
chemical composition of pink water varies depending on the process and explosive
operation from which it is derived; red water has a more defined chemical
composition. For this reason, it is not possible to simulate either red or pink water
in the laboratory.
The United States stopped production of TNT in the mid-1980s, so no red water has
been generated in this country since that date (Hercules Aerospace Company,
1991). Most process waters found in the field are pink waters that were generated
by LAP and demilitarization operations conducted in the 1970s. In these
operations, munitions were placed on racks with their fuses and tops removed. Jets
of hot water then were used to mine the explosives out of the munitions. The
residual waters were placed in settling basins so that solid explosive particles could
be removed, and the remaining water was transferred into lagoons. Contaminants
often present in these lagoon waters and the surrounding soils include TNT, RDX,
HMX, 2,4-DNT, 2,6-DNT, 1,3-DNB, 1,3,5-TNB, and nitrobenzene.
These past waste-handling practices at explosives manufacturing and LAP plants

often used unlined lagoons or pits to contain process wastewaters. As a result of
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-47
this practice, some explosive residues have leached through the soil and
contaminated groundwater. Therefore, groundwater treatment may be required.
Based upon process wastewater treatment experience, potentially applicable
treatment technologies are available. However, the similarities and differences
between process wastewaters and explosives-contaminated groundwater should be
considered before transferring technologies from one application to another.
Granular-activated carbon (GAC) adsorption is commonly used for explosives-

contaminated groundwater treatment. GAC does not work for red water treatment.
In the 1980s, the Army discontinued the practice of disposing of untreated process
waters from the production and maintenance of munitions in open lagoons. Every
Army ammunition plant currently employs some type of GAC system to treat
process waters as they are generated. GAC is very effective at removing a wide
range of explosive contaminants from water.
GAC can be used to treat explosives-contaminated water, including process waters

from the manufacture and demilitarization of munitions (pink water) and
groundwater contaminated from disposal of these waters.
Ultraviolet (UV) oxidation has not been used extensively for remediating water
contaminated with explosives because of the widespread use of GAC treatment.
Nevertheless, UV oxidation can be an effective treatment for explosives-
contaminated water and, unlike carbon treatment, actually destroys target
compounds rather than just transferring them to a more easily disposable medium.
UV oxidation can be used to treat many types of organic explosives-contaminated
water, including process waters from the demilitarization of munitions (pink water)
and groundwater contaminated from disposal of these process waters.
USAE-WES is currently evaluating a perozone system for explosives-contaminated

groundwater treatment. This system uses hydrogen peroxide and ozone to oxidize
explosive constituents without UV light. The perozone system may offer economic
advantages in UV oxidation systems.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2 10/31/00
2-48
Section 3
TREATMENT PERSPECTIVES
Three primary strategies used separately or in conjunction to remediate most sites

are:
· Destruction or alteration of contaminants.

· Extraction or separation of contaminants from environmental media.
· Immobilization of contaminants.
Treatment technologies capable of contaminant destruction by altering their

chemial structure are thermal, biological, and chemical treatment methods. These
destruction technologies can be applied in situ or ex situ to contaminated media.
Treatment technologies commonly used for extraction and separation of

contaminants from environmental media include soil treatment by thermal
desorption, soil washing, solvent extraction, and soil vapor extraction (SVE) and
groundwater treatment by either phase separation, carbon adsorption, air stripping,
ion exchange, or some combination of these technologies. Selection and integration
of technologies should use the most effective contaminant transport mechanisms to
arrive at the most effective treatment scheme. For example, more air than water can
be moved through soil. Therefore, for a volatile contaminant in soil that is relatively
insoluble in water, SVE would be a more efficient separation technology than soil
flushing or washing.
Immobilization technologies include stabilization, solidification, and containment

technologies, such as placement in a secure landfill or construction of slurry walls.
No immobilization technology is permanently effective, so some type of
maintenance is desired. Stabilization technologies are often proposed for
remediating sites contaminated by metals or other inorganic species.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1 10/31/00
3-1
FIGURE 3-1 CLASSIFICATION OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES BY FUNCTION
These concepts about site remediation strategies and representative technologies

associated with them are summarized in Figure 3-1. One feature obvious from the
figure is that the choice of applied technologies is not extensive once a strategy is
selected.
Generally, no single technology can remediate an entire site. Several treatment

technologies are usually combined at a single site to form what is known as a
treatment train. SVE can be integrated with groundwater pumping and air
stripping to simultaneously remove contaminants from both groundwater and soil.
The emissions from the SVE system and the air stripper can be treated in a single
air treatment unit. An added benefit is that the air flow through the soil stimulates
or enhances natural biological activity, and some biodegradation of contaminants
occurs. In some cases, air is injected into either the saturated or the unsaturated
zones to facilitate contaminant transport and to promote biological activity.
For the purpose of this document, the technologies are separated into 13 treatment
groups as follows:
· Soil, sediment, and sludge:
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1 10/31/00
3-2
- In situ biological treatment.

- In situ physical/chemical treatment.
- In situ thermal treatment.
- Ex situ biological treatment (assuming excavation).
- Ex situ physical/chemical treatment (assuming excavation).
- Ex situ thermal treatment (assuming excavation).
- Other treatment processes.
· Groundwater, surface water, and leachate:
- In situ biological treatment.

- In situ physical/chemical treatment.
- Ex situ biological treatment (assuming pumping).
- Ex situ physical/chemical treatment (assuming pumping).
- Other treatment processes.
· Air emissions/off-gas treatment.
These 13 treatment groups correspond to the following 13 subsections (3.1 through

3.13). The discussion of the broad application of each treatment group (e.g., in situ
biological treatment for soil, sediment, and sludge) in this section is followed by a
more detailed discussion of each treatment technology (e.g., bioventing) in that
treatment group, in Section 4. Information on completed projects in these treatment
process areas has been presented in tables extracted from the Innovative Treatment
Technologies Annual Status Report, EPA, 1993, and the Synopses of Federal
Demonstrations of Innovative Site Remediation Technologies, FRTR, 1993.
Tables 3-1 and 3-2 summarize pertinent information for each of the treatment
technologies presented in Section 4. Information summarized includes the
following:
· Technology Profile number (refers to Section 4).

· Scale status (full scale vs. pilot scale).
· Availability.
· Residuals produced.
· Typically treatment train.
· Contaminants treated.
· System reliability/maintainability.
· Cleanup time.
· Overall cost.
· Capital or O&M-intensive.
Additionally, a brief description of each treatment technology is presented in Table

3-3.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1 10/31/00
3-3
TABLE 3-1
DEFINITION OF SYMBOLS USED IN THE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES SCREENING
MATRIX
Factors and Definitions Worse Average Better
_ ? ?
Availability
Number of vendors that can design, Fewer than 2 vendors 2-4 vendors More than 4
construct, and maintain the technology. vendors
Contaminants Treated No expected Either limited This contaminant

effectiveness effectiveness or is a treatment
nontarget (e.g., target of this
VOC treatment by technology
thermally
enhanced SVE)
System Reliability/Maintainability
The degree of system reliability and level of Low reliability and Average reliability High reliability
maintenance required when using the high maintenance and average and low
technology. maintenance maintenance
Cleanup Time
Time required to clean up a "standard" site More than 3 years for 1-3 years Less than 1 year
using the technology. The "standard" site is in situ soil
assumed to be 20,000 tons (18,200 metric
tons) for soils and 1 million gallons More than 1 year for
(3,785,000 liters) for groundwater. ex situ soil 0.5-1 year Less than 0.5
year
More than 10 years
for water 3-10 years Less than 3 years
Overall Cost
Design, construction, and operations and More than $110-$330/metric Less than
maintenance (O&M) costs of the core $330/metric ton ton $110/metric ton
process that defines each technology, ($300/ton) for soils ($100-$300/ton) ($100/ton)
exclusive of mobilization, demobilization,
and pre- and post-treatment. For ex situ More than $0.79- Less than
soil, sediment, and sludge technologies, it is $2.64/1,000 liters $2.64/1,000 liters $0.79/1,000 liters
assumed that excavation costs average ($10/1,000 gal.) for ($3.00 ($3.00/1,000
$55.00/metric ton ($50/ton). For ex situ groundwater -$10.00/1,000 gallons)
groundwater technologies, it is assumed gallons)
that pumping costs average $0.07/1,000 More than $11.33/kg
liters ($0.25/1,000 gallons). ($25/lb) for air Less than
emissions and off- $3.17-$11.33/kg $3.17/kg ($7/lb)
gases ($7-$25/lb)
Source: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide, Version I (EPA, USAF,
1993).
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1 10/31/00
3-4
TABLE 3-2 REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES SCREENING MATRIX
graphic
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1 10/31/00
3-5
TABLE 3-3
DEFINITION OF MATRIX TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Technology Description
In Situ Biological Treatment
Biodegradation The activity of naturally occurring microbes is stimulated by circulating water-
based solutions through contaminated soils to enhance in situ biological
degradation of organic contaminants. Nutrients, oxygen, or other amendments
may be used to enhance biodegradation and contaminant desorption from
subsurface materials.
Bioventing Oxygen is delivered to contaminated unsaturated soils by forced air movement
(either extraction or injection of air) to increase oxygen concentrations and
stimulate biodegradation.
White Rot Fungus White rot fungus has been reported to degrade a wide variety of organopollutants
by using their lignin-degrading or wood-rotting enzyme system. Two different
treatment configurations have been tested for white rot fungus, in situ and
bioreactor.
In Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment
Pneumatic Fracturing Pressurized air is injected beneath the surface to develop cracks in low
permeability and over-consolidated sediments, opening new passageways that
increase the effectiveness of many in situ processes and enhance extraction
efficiencies.
Soil Flushing Water, or water containing an additive to enhance contaminant solubility, is
applied to the soil or injected into the groundwater to raise the water table into the
contaminated soil zone. Contaminants are leached into the groundwater, which
is then extracted and treated.
Soil Vapor Extraction Vacuum is applied through extraction wells to create a pressure/concentration
gradient that induces gas-phase volatiles to diffuse through soil to extraction
wells. The process includes a system for handling off-gases. This technology
also is known as in situ soil venting, in situ volatilization, enhanced volatilization,
or soil vacuum extraction.
Solidification/ Contaminants are physically bound or enclosed within a stabilized mass
Stabilization (solidification), or chemical reactions are induced between the stabilizing agent
and contaminants to reduce their mobility (stabilization).
In Situ Thermal Treatment
Thermally Enhanced Steam/hot air injection or electric/radio frequency heating is used to increase the
Soil Vapor Extraction mobility of volatiles and facilitate extraction. The process includes a system for
handling off-gases.
Vitrification Electrodes for applying electricity are used to melt contaminated soils and
sludges, producing a glass and crystalline structure with very low leaching
characteristics.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1 10/31/00
3-6
TABLE 3-3
DEFINITION OF TREATMENT MATRIX TECHNOLOGIES (CONTINUED)
Ex Situ Biological Treatment (assuming excavation)
Composting Contaminated soil is excavated and mixed with bulking agents and organic
amendments such as wood chips, animal and vegetative wastes, which are
added to enhance the porosity and organic content of the mixture to be
decomposed.
Controlled Solid Phase Excavated soils are mixed with soil amendments and placed in aboveground
Biological Treatment enclosures. Processes include prepared treatment beds, biotreatment cells, soil
piles, and composting.
Landfarming Contaminated soils are applied onto the soil surface and periodically turned over
or tilled into the soil to aerate the waste.
Slurry Phase Biological An aqueous slurry is created by combining soil or sludge with water and other
Treatment additives. The slurry is mixed to keep solids suspended and microorganisms in
contact with the soil contaminants. Upon completion of the process, the slurry is
dewatered and the treated soil is disposed of.
Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment (assuming excavation)
Chemical Reduction/ Reduction/oxidation chemically converts hazardous contaminants to non-
Oxidation hazardous or less toxic compounds that are more stable, less mobile, and/or
inert. The oxidizing agents most commonly used are ozone, hydrogen peroxide,
hypochlorites, chlorine, and chlorine dioxide.
Base Catalyzed Contaminated soil is screened, processed with a crusher and pug mill, and mixed
Decomposition with NaOH and catalysts. The mixture is heated in a rotary reactor to
Dehalogenation dehalogenate and partially volatilize the contaminants.
Glycolate An alkaline polyethylene glycol (APEG) reagent is used to dehalogenate
Dehalogenation halogenated aromatic compounds in a batch reactor. Potassium polyethylene
glycol (KPEG) is the most common APEG reagent. Contaminated soils and the
reagent are mixed and heated in a treatment vessel. In the APEG process, the
reaction causes the polyethylene glycol to replace halogen molecules and render
the compound non-hazardous. For example, the reaction between chlorinated
organics and KPEG causes replacement of a chlorine molecule and results in a
reduction in toxicity.
Soil Washing Contaminants sorbed onto fine soil particles are separated from bulk soil in an
aqueous-based system on the basis of particle size. The wash water may be
augmented with a basic leaching agent, surfactant, pH adjustment, or chelating
agent to help remove organics and heavy metals.
Soil Vapor Extraction A vacuum is applied to a network of aboveground piping to encourage
volatilization of organics from the excavated media. The process includes a
system for handling off-gases.
Solidification/ Contaminants are physically bound or enclosed within a stabilized mass
Stabilization (solidification), or chemical reactions are induced between the stabilizing agent
and contaminants to reduce their mobility (stabilization).
Solvent Extraction Waste and solvent are mixed in an extractor, dissolving the organic contaminant
into the solvent. The extracted organics and solvent are then placed in a
separator, where the contaminants and solvent are separated for treatment and
further use.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1 10/31/00
3-7
TABLE 3-3
DEFINITION OF MATRIX TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES (CONTINUED)
Ex Situ Thermal Treatment (assuming excavation)
High-Temperature Wastes are heated to 315-538 ? C (600-1,000 ? F) to volatilize water and organic
Thermal Desorption contaminants. A carrier gas or vacuum system transports volatilized water and
organics to the gas treatment system.
Hot Gas The process involves raising the temperature of the contaminated equipment or
Decontamination material for a specified period of time. The gas effluent from the material is
treated in an afterburner system to destroy all volatilized contaminants.
Incineration High temperatures, 871-1,204 ? C (1,600- 2,200 ? F), are used to combust (in the
presence of oxygen) organic constituents in hazardous wastes.
Low-Temperature Wastes are heated to 93-315 ? C (200-600 ? F) to volatilize water and organic
Thermal Desorption contaminants. A carrier gas or vacuum system transports volatilized water and
organics to the gas treatment system.
Open Burn/Open In OB operations, explosives or munitions are destroyed by self-sustained
Detonation (OB/OD) combustion, which is ignited by an external source, such as flame, heat, or a
detonatable wave (that does not result in a detonation). In OD operations,
detonatable explosives and munitions are destroyed by a detonation, which is
initiated by the detonation of a disposal charge.
Pyrolysis Chemical decomposition is induced in organic materials by heat in the absence
of oxygen. Organic materials are transformed into gaseous components and a
solid residue (coke) containing fixed carbon and ash.
Vitrification Contaminated soils and sludges are melted at high temperature to form a glass
and crystalline structure with very low leaching characteristics.
Other Treatment
Excavation and Off- Contaminated material is removed and transported to permitted off-site treatment
Site Disposal and disposal facilities. Pretreatment may be required.
Natural Attenuation Natural subsurface processes— such as dilution, volatilization, biodegradation,
adsorption, and chemical reactions with subsurface materials— are allowed to
reduce contaminant concentrations to acceptable levels.
In Situ Biological Treatment
Co-Metabolic An emerging application involves the injection of water containing dissolved
Processes methane and oxygen into groundwater to enhance methanotrophic biological
degradation.
Nitrate Enhancement Nitrate is circulated throughout groundwater contamination zones as an
alternative electron acceptor for biological oxidation of organic contaminants by
microbes.
Oxygen Enhancement Air is injected under pressure below the water table to increase groundwater
with Air Sparging oxygen concentrations and enhance the rate of biological degradation of organic
contaminants by naturally occurring microbes.
Oxygen Enhancement A dilute solution of hydrogen peroxide is circulated throughout a contaminated
with Hydrogen groundwater zone to increase the oxygen content of groundwater and enhance
Peroxide the rate of aerobic biodegradation of organic contaminants by microbes.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1 10/31/00
3-8
TABLE 3-3
In Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment
Air Sparging Air is injected into saturated matrices to remove contaminants through
volatilization.
Directional Wells Drilling techniques are used to position wells horizontally, or at an angle, in order
(enhancement) to reach contaminants not accessible via direct vertical drilling.
Dual Phase Extraction A high vacuum system is applied to simultaneously remove liquid and gas from
low permeability or heterogeneous formations.
Free Product Recovery Undissolved liquid-phase organics are removed from subsurface formations,
either by active methods (e.g., pumping) or a passive collection system.
Hot Water or Steam Steam is forced into an aquifer through injection wells to vaporize volatile and
Flushing/Stripping semivolatile contaminants. Vaporized components rise to the unsaturated zone
where they are removed by vacuum extraction and then treated.
Hydrofracturing Injection of pressurized water through wells cracks low permeability and over-
(enhancement) consolidated sediments. Cracks are filled with porous media that serve as
avenues for bioremediation or to improve pumping efficiency.
Passive Treatment These barriers allow the passage of water while prohibiting the movement of
Walls contaminants by employing such agents as chelators (ligands selected for their
specificity for a given metal), sorbents, microbes, and others.
Slurry Walls These subsurface barriers consist of vertically excavated trenches filled with
slurry. The slurry, usually a mixture of bentonite and water, hydraulically shores
the trench to prevent collapse and retards groundwater flow.
Vacuum Vapor Air is injected into a well, lifting contaminated groundwater in the well and
Extraction allowing additional groundwater flow into the well. Once inside the well, some of
the VOCs in the contaminated groundwater are transferred from the water to air
bubbles, which rise and are collected at the top of the well by vapor extraction.
Ex Situ Biological Treatment (assuming pumping)
Bioreactors Contaminants in extracted groundwater are put into contact with microorganisms
in attached or suspended growth biological reactors. In suspended systems,
such as activated sludge, contaminated groundwater is circulated in an aeration
basin. In attached systems, such as rotating biological contractors and trickling
filters, microorganisms are established on an inert support matrix.
Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment (assuming pumping)
Air Stripping Volatile organics are partitioned from groundwater by increasing the surface area
of the contaminated water exposed to air. Aeration methods include packed
towers, diffused aeration, tray aeration, and spray aeration.
Filtration Filtration isolates solid particles by running a fluid stream through a porous
medium. The driving force is either gravity or a pressure differential across the
filtration medium.
Ion Exchange Ion exchange removes ions from the aqueous phase by exchange with innocuous
ions on the exchange medium.
Liquid Phase Carbon Groundwater is pumped through a series of canisters or columns containing
Adsorption activated carbon to which dissolved organic contaminants adsorb. Periodic
replacement or regeneration of saturated carbon is required.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1 10/31/00
3-9
TABLE 3-3
Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment (assuming pumping) (continued)
Precipitation This process transforms dissolved contaminants into an insoluble solid,
facilitating the contaminant's subsequent removal from the liquid phase by
sedimentation or filtration. The process usually uses pH adjustment, addition of
a chemical precipitant, and flocculation.
UV Oxidation Ultraviolet (UV) radiation, ozone, and/or hydrogen peroxide are used to destroy
organic contaminants as water flows into a treatment tank. An ozone destruction
unit is used to treat off-gases from the treatment tank.
Other Treatment
Natural Attenuation Natural subsurface processes— such as dilution, volatilization, biodegradation,
adsorption, and chemical reactions with subsurface materials— are allowed to
reduce contaminant concentrations to acceptable levels.
AIR EMISSIONS/OFF-GAS TREATMENT
Biofiltration Vapor-phase organic contaminants are pumped through a soil bed and sorb to
the soil surface where they are degraded by microorganisms in the soil.
High Energy Corona The HEC process uses high-voltage electricity to destroy VOCs at room
temperature.
Membrane Separation This organic vapor/air separation technology involves the preferential transport of
organic vapors through a nonporous gas separation membrane (a diffusion
process analogous to putting hot oil on a piece of waxed paper).
Oxidation Organic contaminants are destroyed in a high temperature 1,000 ? C (1,832 ? F)
combustor. Trace organics in contaminated air streams are destroyed at lower
temperatures, 450 ? C (842 ? F), than conventional combustion by passing the
mixture through a catalyst.
Vapor Phase Carbon Off-gases are pumped through a series of canisters or columns containing
Adsorption activated carbon to which organic contaminants adsorb. Periodic replacement or
regeneration of saturated carbon is required.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1 10/31/00
3-10
? 3.1 IN SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT,

AND
SLUDGE
The main advantage of in situ treatment is that it allows soil to be treated without
being excavated and transported, resulting in potentially significant cost savings.
However, in situ treatment generally requires longer time periods, and there is less
certainty about the uniformity of treatment because of the variability in soil and
aquifer characteristics and because the efficacy of the process is more difficult to
verify.
Bioremediation techniques are destruction techniques directed toward stimulating

the microorganisms to grow and use the contaminants as a food and energy source
by creating a favorable environment for the microorganisms. Generally, this means
providing some combination of oxygen, nutrients, and moisture, and controlling the
temperature and pH. Sometimes, microorganisms adapted for degradation of the
specific contaminants are applied to enhance the process.
Biological processes are typically easily implemented at low cost. Contaminants

can be destroyed, and often little to no residual treatment is required; however, the
process requires more time, and it is difficult to determine whether contaminants
have been destroyed. Biological treatment of PAHs leaves less degradable PAHs
(cPAHs) behind. These higher molecular weight cPAHs are classified as
carcinogens. Also, an increase in chlorine concentration leads to a decrease in
biodegradability. Some compounds, however, may be broken down into more toxic
by-products during the bioremediation process (e.g., TCE to vinyl chloride). In in
situ applications, these by-products may be mobilized to groundwater or contacted
directly if no control techniques are used. This type of treatment scheme requires
soil, aquifer, and contaminant characterization, and may require extracted
groundwater treatment. Groundwater with low level contamination may sometimes
be recirculated through the treatment area to supply water to the treatment area.
Although not all organic compounds are amenable to biodegradation,

bioremediation techniques have been successfully used to remediate soils, sludges,
and groundwater contaminated by petroleum hydrocarbons, solvents, pesticides,
wood preservatives, and other organic chemicals. Bioremediation is not applicable
for treatment of inorganic contaminants.
The rate at which microorganisms degrade contaminants is influenced by the

specific contaminants present, oxygen supply, moisture, temperature, pH, nutrient
supply, bioaugmentation, and cometabolism. Treatability studies are typically
conducted to determine the effectiveness of bioremediation in a given situation.
These parameters are discussed briefly in the following paragraphs.
Oxygen level in the soil is increased by avoiding saturation of the soil with water,
the presence of sandy and loamy soil as opposed to clay soil, avoiding compaction,
avoiding high redox potential, and low concentrations of degradable materials. To
ensure that oxygen is supplied at a rate sufficient to maintain aerobic conditions,
forced air or hydrogen peroxide injection can be used. The use of hydrogen
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1 10/31/00
3-11
peroxide is limited because at high concentrations (above 100 ppm, 1,000 ppm with
proper acclimation), it is toxic to microorganisms. Also, hydrogen peroxide tends to
decompose into water and oxygen rapidly in the presence of some soil constituents.
Anaerobic conditions may be used to degrade highly chlorinated contaminants,

although at a very slow rate. This can be followed by aerobic treatment to complete
biodegradation of the partially dechlorinated compounds as well as the other
contaminants.
Water serves as the transport medium through which nutrients and organic
constituents pass into the microbial cell and metabolic waste products pass out of
the cell. Too much water can be detrimental, however, because it may inhibit the
passage of oxygen through the soil (unless anaerobic conditions are desired).
Nutrients required for cell growth are nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, sulfur,
magnesium, calcium, manganese, iron, zinc, copper, and trace elements. If nutrients
are not available in sufficient amounts, microbial activity will become limited.
Nitrogen and phosphorous are the nutrients most likely to be deficient in the
contaminated environment. These are usually added to the bioremediation system in
a useable form (e.g., as ammonium for nitrogen and as phosphate for phosphorous).
Phosphates can cause soil plugging as a result of their reaction with minerals, such
as iron and calcium, to form stable precipitates that fill the pores in the soil and
aquifer.
pH affects the solubility, and consequently the availability, of many constituents of

soil, which can affect biological activity. Many metals that are potentially toxic to
microorganisms are insoluble at elevated pH; therefore, elevating the pH of the
treatment system can reduce the risk of poisoning the microorganisms.
Temperature affects microbial activity in the environment. The biodegradation

rate will slow with decreasing temperature; thus, in northern climates
bioremediation may be ineffective during part of the year unless it is carried out in a
climate-controlled facility. The microorganisms remain viable at temperatures
below freezing and will resume activity when the temperature rises.
Heating the bioremediation site, such as by use of warm air injection, may speed up
the remediation process. At Eielson AFB, Alaska, passive solar warming by
incubation tanks (ex situ) or the application of heated water below the ground
surface to the contaminated vadose zone is being investigated. Too high a
temperature can be detrimental to some microorganisms, essentially sterilizing the
soil.
Temperature also affects nonbiological losses of contaminants mainly through the

increased volatilization of contaminants at high temperatures. The solubility of
contaminants typically increases with increasing temperature; however, some
hydrocarbons are more soluble at low temperatures than at high temperatures.
Additionally, oxygen solubility decreases with increasing temperature.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1 10/31/00
3-12
Bioaugmentation involves the use of microbial cultures that have been specially
bred for degradation of specific contaminants or contaminant groups and sometimes
for survival under unusually severe environmental conditions. Sometimes
microorganisms from the remediation site are collected, separately cultured, and
returned to the site as a means of rapidly increasing the microorganism population
at the site. Usually an attempt is made to isolate and accelerate the growth of the
population of natural microorganisms that preferentially feed on the contaminants at
the site. In some situations different microorganisms may be added at different
stages of the remediation process because the contaminants in abundance change as
the degradation proceeds. USAF research, however, has found no evidence that the
use of non-native microorganisms is beneficial in the situations tested.
Cometabolism uses microorganisms growing on one compound to produce an

enzyme that chemically transforms another compound on which they cannot grow.
Treatability or feasibility studies are used to determine whether bioremediation

would be effective in a given situation. The extent of the study can vary depending
on the nature of the contaminants and the characteristics of the site. For sites
contaminated with common petroleum hydrocarbons (e.g., gasoline and/or other
readily degradable compounds), it is usually sufficient to examine representative
samples for the presence and level of an indigenous population of microbes, nutrient
levels, presence of microbial toxicants, and soil characteristics such as pH, porosity,
and moisture.
Statistical characterization techniques should be used to represent "before" and

"after" situations to verify biological treatment effectiveness.
Available in situ biological treatment technologies include biodegradation,

bioventing, and white rot fungus. These technologies are discussed in Section 4
(Treatment Technology Profiles 4.1 through 4.3). Completed in situ biological
treatment projects for soil, sediment, and sludge are shown in Table 3-4.
In situ biological treatment technologies are sensitive to certain soil parameters. For
example, the presence of clay or humic materials in soil cause variations in
biological treatment process performance.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1 10/31/00
3-13
TABLE 3-4
COMPLETED PROJECTS: IN SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE
Technology/ Media Contaminants Operating Materials Residuals
Site Name/Contact Vendor Treated Treated Parameters Handling Managemen
EPA Remedial Action In situ soil Soil (12 acres 54 contaminants Additives - nitrogen, Tilling Capping in place
Seymour Recycling, IN bioremediation/ to 10 ft deep, present, including phosphorus,
ABB approximately TCE, TCA, and potassium, sulfur as
3
Summer 1990 Environmental 43,500 yd ) carbon tetrachloride fertilizer (200,000
8/86 to 10/86 Services gallons of nutrients
1/87 to 2/87 No standards or added)
criteria for this OU in
Jeff Gore ROD
(312) 886-6552
3
EPA Removal Action In situ Soil (14 yd ) Input: Additives to soil: Tilling Output:
Roseville Drums, CA bioremediation/ manure, water
EPA removal Dichlorobenzene- Dichlorobenzene
2/12/88 to 11/9/88 contractor 4,000 ppm 140 ppm
Brad Shipley Phenol - 12,000 ppm Phenol - 6 ppm

(415) 744-2287
3
EPA Removal Action In situ anaerobic Soil (3,220 yd ) Toxaphene pH: 8.3 to 9.8 Tilling Capped in pl
Gila River Indian biological treatment Additives to soil:
Reservation, AZ (preceded by Input: 470 ppm sulfuric acid, manure,
chemical sludge
6/24/85 to 10/23/85 treatment)/ Output: 180 ppm
EPA removal
Richard Martin contractor
(414) 744-2288
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1
3-14
TABLE 3-4
COMPLETED PROJECTS: IN SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CONTINUED
3
EPA Removal Action In situ chemical Soil (3,200 yd ) Input: pH: 10.12 to 11.8 Bioremediation Output:
Gila River, Indian treatment (followed Moisture: wet
Reservation, AZ by anaerobic Toxaphene - 1,470 Additives to soil: Toxaphene -
bioremediation)/ ppm sodium hydroxide, ppm
3/28/85 to 6/24/85 EPA removal water
contractor Ethyl parathion- 86 Ethyl parathion
Richard Martin ppm ppm
(414) 744-2288
Methyl parathion- 24 Methyl parathion
ppm ppm
Navy Demo Biodecontamina- Soil Fuel Oil In situ; In situ In situ

Naval Communication tion of fuel oil spills microorganisms
Station, Scotland function best at 20-35
?C
2/85 to 10/85
Deh Bin Chan

(805) 982-4191
DOE Biodegradation Soil & ground- TCE, PCE declined to In situ Injection of 1- 4% In situ
Savannah River Site, SC water <2 ppb methane/air into
aquifer via
Terry C. Hazen horizontal wells
(803) 725-5178
Army Demo Biodegradation of Soil Motor oil/lubrication oil In situ. Disk inoculant & In situ
U.S. Army lube oil- nutrients into
Construction contaminated soils contaminated soil.
Engineering Research Cover soil
Laboratory, IL w/ventilated
plastic sheeting.
Jean Donnelly
(217) 352-6511
Air Force Demo Kelly In situ Soil & ground- Hydrocarbons - fuels, In situ – soil Nutrients Pumping wells
AFB, TX & Eglin AFB, Biodegradation water fuel oils, & non- conditioning and introduced into remove excess fl
FL halogenated solvents electron acceptor aquifer through
addition. irrigation wells
Joe Laird
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1
3-15
(402) 221-7772
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1
3-16
TABLE 3-4
COMPLETED PROJECTS: IN SITU BIOLOGIC AL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CONTINUED
Technology/Ve Media Contaminants Operating Materials Residuals
Site Name/Contact ndor Treated Treated Parameters Handling Managemen
DOE Demo Vegetation- Soil TCE, PCE & PAHs at In situ Root-associated In situ
Savannah River enhanced 10,000 ppb micro-organisms
Site, SC biodegradation degrade
contaminants.
Nate Ellis
(803) 952-4846
Brian Loony
(803) 752-5181
Air Force Tech Demo - Bioventing initiative Soil Diesel, jet fuel, fuel Aerobic degradation by Temporary In situ technique
Program was launched oil, or petroleum direct injection or shutdown of air non- and semi
in 5/92 hydrocarbons extraction of air injection in vent volatile hydrocarb
well to measure in
Lt. Col. Ross N. Miller situ rate of oxygen
(210) 536-4331 res-piration in the
monitoring wells.
DOI Tech Demo Vapor extraction Soil & ground- Gasoline AIRFLOW - an MODFLOW to None
(USGS) and bioventing water adaptation of the perform airflow
Galloway Township, NJ design USGS groundwater simulations to
1988 flow simulator predict well
locations and
Herbert T. Buxton pumping rates
(609) 771-3900
Sources: Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report(EPA, 1993).

Synopsis of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site Remediation Technologies (FRTR, 1993).
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1
3-17
? 3.2 IN SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT,

AND SLUDGE
being excavated and transported, resulting in potentially significant cost savings.
However, in situ treatment generally requires longer time periods, and there is less
certainty about the uniformity of treatment because of the variability in soil and
aquifer characteristics and because the efficacy of the process is more difficult to
verify.
Physical/chemical treatment uses the physical properties of the contaminants or the

contaminated medium to destroy (i.e., chemically convert), separate, or contain the
contamination. Soil vapor extraction uses the contaminant's volatility to separate it
from the soil. Soil flushing uses the contaminant's solubility in liquid to physically
separate it from the soil. Surfactants may be added to the flushing solution to
chemically increase the solubility of a contaminant. Solidification/stabilization also
uses both physical and chemical means. Solidification encapsulates the
contaminant, while stabilization physically alters or binds with the contaminant.
Pneumatic fracturing is an enhanced technique that physically alters the
contaminated media's permeability by injecting pressurized air to develop cracks in
consolidated materials.
Physical/chemical treatment is typically cost effective and can be completed in short

time periods (in comparison with biological treatment). Equipment is readily
available and is not engineering or energy-intensive. Treatment residuals from
separation techniques will require treatment or disposal, which will add to the total
project costs and may require permits. Extraction fluids from soil flushing will
increase the mobility of the contaminants, so provisions must be made for
subsurface recovery.
Available in situ physical/chemical treatment technologies include soil vapor

extraction, soil flushing, solidification/st abilization, and pneumatic fracturing.
These treatment technologies are discussed in Section 4 (Treatment Technology
Profiles 4.4 through 4.7). Completed in situ physical/chemical treatment projects
for soil, sediment, and sludge are shown in Table 3-5.
Certain in situ physical/chemical treatment technologies are sensitive to certain soil

parameters. For example, the presence of clay or humic materials in soil causes
variations in horizontal and vertical hydraulic parameters, which, in turn, cause
variations in physical/chemical process performance. Stabilization/solidification
technologies are less sensitive to soil parameters than other physical/chemical
treatment technologies.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009 \compgde.3a1 10/31/00
3-18
TABLE 3-5
COMPLETED PROJECTS: IN SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR SO IL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE
3
EPA Remedial Action In situ SVE/ Soil (150 yd ) Initial concentration: 24 hours/day None Extracted vapor
Sacramento AD Terra Vac, Inc., MEK 15 ppm treated with gas
Tank 2 OU, CA Costa Mesa, CA Ethylbenzene 2,100 phase carbon
ppm adsorption.
11/91 to 4/93 PCE 39 ppm Entrained
Total xylene 11,000 (suspended) wat
Marlin Mezquita ppm treatment by the
(415) 744-2393 existing on-site U
George Siller Cleanup goal: hydrogen peroxid
(916) 557-7418 1.2 ppm MEK treatment plant
Dan Oburn 6 ppm Ethylbenzene
(916) 388-4344 23 ppm total xylene
0.2 ppm PCE
EPA Remedial Action SVE with air Soil (2,000,000 Initial concentration: In situ Excavation Carbon canister,
3
Fair Child flushing yd ) TCA 670,000 ppb dewatering of soil stripping for pum
Semiconductor 1,1-DCE 6,400 ppb where leaking and treat
San Jose, CA Freon 113 7,200 ppb UST was
discovered
1989 to 6/90 Final concentrations
unknown
Helen McKinley
(510) 744-2236 Target was 1 ppm
Steve Hill
(510) 286-0433
3
EPA Remedial Action SVE/EBASCO Soil (60 yd , TCE, vinyl chloride In situ None required Air emissions ven
Hollingsworth down to 7 feet to atmosphere
Solderless, FL deep) Target: total VOCs 1
ppm
1/91 to 7/91
John Zimmerman
(404) 347-2643
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1
3-19
TABLE 3-5
COMPLETED PROJECTS: IN SITU PHYSIC AL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CO
3
EPA Remedial Action SVE (attempted Soil (35,000 Initial soil 60 - 160 ft /min of air No materials Spent carbon wa
3
Verona Wellfield nitrogen sparging)/ yd , ½ acre to concentration: handling; required regenerated (and
(Thomas Terra Vac, Inc. 18 ft deep) TCE 550,000 ppb Started >4,400 lb/day installing eventually
Solvent/Raymond Road), Costa Mesa, CA PCE 1.8 million ppb removed extraction wells incinerated)
MI Toluene 730,000 ppb
Xylene 500,000 ppb Shut off 6 lb/day
3/88 to 5/92 removed
Criteria in all post
Margaret Guerriero remedial soil samples: Total removed:
(312) 886-0399 TCE 60 ppb 65,000 lb
PCE 10 ppb
Toluene 15,000 ppb
Total xylenes 6,000
ppb
3
EPA Remedial Action SVE/Woodward Soil (100 ft TCE 250 to 300 ft / min. of Required installing Vapor phase
Rocky Mountain Arsenal Clyde radius down to air extraction wells adsorption
(OU 18) Interim Denver, CO 60 ft; Initial extracted gas
Response, CO approximately concentration 60 ppm Total removed 64 lb
3
70,000 yd )
6/91 to 12/91 Final extracted gas
concentration 2 to 3
Stacey Eriksen ppm
(303) 294-1083
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1
3-20
TABLE 3-5
COMPLETED PROJECTS: IN SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CO
EPA Removal Action SVE/OH Materials Soil (60,000 Benzene, TCE, PCE, In situ; continuous No cap needed Air emissions
3
Hinson Chemical, SC Atlanta, GA yd , up to 50 ft DCA, MEK operation (except for captured on vapo
deep) occasional shut downs phase carbon
12/88 to 3/92 At completion: to allow soil gas to
<10 ppm Total VOCs reach equilibrium in
Fred Stroud (in all samples); the pore spaces)
(404) 347-3136 average <1 ppm Total
VOCs
EPA Removal Action SVE with air Soil (200,000 BTEX 130,000-gallon Used a system of Brought in clay to Wastewater sent
3
CSX McCormick flushing/MWRI yd ) spill extraction and injection cover the area, to site for treatment
Derailment Site, SC wells. 1,000 separate prevent air from Vapors captured
PVC wells. Injection infiltrating put through a kno
Steve Spurlin wells 7 to 8 feet deep. out pot and
(404) 347-3931 Extraction wells 2 to 3 incinerated.
feet deep.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1
3-21
TABLE 3-5
Luke AFB, AZ SVE with air Soil (35,000 VOCs (2-hexanone, In situ down to 100 ft Removed Off gas vapors w
3
flushing and yd ) 2-butanone, 4-methyl approximately thermally oxidize
11/91 to 5/92 thermal oxidation of 2 pentanone, BTEX) 11,000 lb of
off-gases/Jacobs vapors and 4,000
Jerome Stolinsky Engineering lb of condensate
(402) 221-7170
Dan McCafferty
(406) 523-1150
EPA Demo Chemical Soil & sludge Organic compounds, In/ex situ. Sediments- Blending with Treated material
Douglassville, PA treatment & heavy metals, oil, & - underwater. Batch cement or fly ash, hardens to a
immobilization grease process at 120 water, and concrete-like mas
10/87 tons/hour "Chloranan"
Paul R. dePercin
(513) 569-7797
Ray Funderburk
(903) 545-2002
DOE Demo In situ air stripping Soil & ground- TCE & PCE initial In situ (horizontal One well below Extraction averag
Savannah River Site, SC with horizontal water concentrations: 5000 wells) water table injects 110 lb of VOCs/d
wells ppm; stabilized to air while shallower
7/90 to 12/90 200-300 ppm well draws
vacuum.
Brian Loony
(803) 725-5181
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1
3-22
TABLE 3-5
Air Force & EPA Demo In situ SVE Vadose zone VOCs: TCE, DCE, Vacuum required to In situ Contaminants are
McClellan AFB, CA soils only vinyl chloride, toluene, pull contaminants to treated with a
xylene, & the surface catalytic oxidatio
2/93 chlorobenzenes in the unit prior to
100-1,000 ppm range atmospheric rele
Joseph Danko
(503) 752-4271
Air Force Demo In situ soil venting Unsaturated Fuels and TCE. Fuel Venting rates varied May be necessary Transfer-of-
Hill AFB, UT soils residual was <100 from 250 to 1,000 to seal surface to method, so the w
3
ppm ft /min air is not destroyed
12/88 to 10/89
Capt. E.G. Marchand

(904) 283-6023
Army Demo In situ soil venting Unsaturated VOCs. Removed 400 System had 40 vents May be necessary Off gas stream
Twin Cities AAP, MN soil lb of VOCs/day and 4 20-hp blowers. to seal surface to
initially,down to 15 Vents averaged 30 ft air
1986 to 1993 lb/day at end in depth
Eric Hangeland
(410) 671-2054
EPA Demo In situ vacuum Vadose or VOCs - gas, fuel, 4 extraction wells, Typically 20-2,500 Emission control
-4
Superfund Sites extraction unsaturated 1,300 lb VOC ideal permeability 10 lb/day of required
-8
Puerto Rico & zone soils removed in 56 days, to 10 cm/s, Henry's contaminant
Massachusetts average reduction law >0.0001
90% (clay) to 92%
1987 to 1988 (sand)
Mary Stinson
(908) 321-6683
James Malot
(809) 723-9171
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1
3-23
TABLE 3-5
COMPLETED PROJECTS: IN SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIME NT, AND SLUDGE (CO
Army Demo SVE Soil BTEX (16, 183, 84, In situ - 2 60-ft In situ Carbon air treatm
Luke AFB, AZ 336 ppm) and TRPH extraction wells at 100 residual condens
(1,300 ppm) scfm generated at 8 gp
1992 and incinerated
Jerome Stolinsky
(402) 221-7170
2
EPA Demo Subsurface Soil Organics, fuels O2, CO , & microbes In situ VOC emissions
Buchanan, MI volatilization & monitored treated in biofilte
ventilation system required
1992 to 1993 (SVVS)
Kim Lisa Kreiton

(513) 569-7328
Gale Billings
(505) 345-1116
DOE Demo Vacuum-induced Unsaturated Gasoline - 99.8% In situ - each well has Includes manually Thermal oxidatio
LLNL, CA soil venting Soil destruction, 100 gal. 5 vents above water adjusted vapors - 99.8%
free product removed table, including 2 skimming pipe destruction
Mike Gill above 20-25 inches
3
(415) 744-2383 Hg, 60 ft /minute
3
Army Demo Vapor extraction Soil - 200 yd Ethylbenzene, In situ To depth of 18 ft Vapor treated by
Sacramento Army Depot, system butanone, xylene, thermal burner or
CA PCE catalytic oxidatio
Entrained water
1992 to 1993 treated off-site
Ron Oburn
(916) 388-4344
Bob Cox (Terra Vac)
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1
3-24
TABLE 3-5
EPA Demo Pneumatic Soil & rock VOCs, SVOCs In situ - hot gas @ 200 Injection of Off-gas flow rate
NJDEPE-ECRA Site, NJ Fracturing ?F compressed gas increased,
Extraction_ & Hot to fracture soil, concentration
1992 Gas Injection HGI to strip remained consta
(HGI) contaminants
Uwe Frank
(908) 321-6626
John Liskowitz
(908) 739-6444
EPA SITE Demo In situ solidification Wet or dry soil, PCBs, inorganic and Slurry injection with Mixing, binding PCB immobilizati
Hialeah, FL and stabilization sludge, organic cpds auger rotating at 15 agent is modified is likely but not
sediment rpm for each waste confirmed
1988-90
Mary Stinson
(908) 321-6683
EPA Demo Hydraulic Soil Rate of In situ Water infiltration Fracture growth i
Oak Brook, IL & Dayton, fracturing bioremediation into vapor measured throug
OH increased 75% for extraction area the deformation o
BTEX, 77% for TPH should be the ground surfac
1991 prevented
Naomi Barkley
(513) 569-7854
Larry Murdock
(513) 569-7897

Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site Remediation Technologies(FRTR, 1993).
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1
3-25
? 3.3 IN SITU THERMAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE

being excavated and transported, resulting in significant cost savings. However, in
situ treatment generally requires longer time periods, and there is less certainty
about the uniformity of treatment because of the variability in soil and aquifer
characteristics and because the efficacy of the process is more difficult to verify.
Thermal treatment offers quick cleanup times, but it is generally the most costly
treatment group. Cost is driven by energy and equipment costs and is both capital
and O&M-intensive.
Thermally enhanced SVE is an extraction technique that uses temperature to

increase the volatility of the contaminants in the soils. Thermally enhanced SVE
may require off-gas and/or residual liquid treatment. In situ vitrification uses heat
to melt soil, destroying some organic compounds and encapsulating inorganics.
Available in situ thermal treatment technologies include thermally enhanced SVE

and vitrification. These technologies are discussed in Section 4 (Treatment
Technology Profiles 4.8 and 4.9). Completed in situ thermal treatment projects for
soil, sediment, and sludge are shown in Table 3-6.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009 \compgde.3a1 10/31/00
3-26
TABLE 3-6
COMPLETED PROJECTS: IN SITU THERMAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE
DOE Demo Dynamic Concentrated Organics In situ injection Combination of Organics volatiliz
LLNL, CA underground underground pressure controlled to steam injection and extracted in
stripping plumes increase with depth and 3-phase soil vapor stream
1993 heating
Roger D. Aines, Robin L.

Newmark
(415) 423-7184 or 3644
EPA Demo Geosafe In situ vitrification Soil & sludge Organics & inorganics 1,600-2,000?C In situ Off-gas treatmen
Test Site, WA; Hanford system removes
Nuclear Reservation, Transmission pollutants (by
WA, ORNL, TN; INEL, voltages=12.5 or 13.8 quenching,
ID kV scrubbing, heatin
filtration)
1993
Teri Richardson
(513) 569-7949
James Hanson
(206) 822-4000
DOE Demo Hanford In situ vitrification Soils Organics, inorganics, Joule heating through In situ Organics destroy
Reservation, WA; & radionuclides electrodes inorganics
ORNL, TN incorporated in
resultant mass
1993
Leo E. Thompson
(509) 376-5150
James E. Hansen
(509) 375-0710
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1
3-27
TABLE 3-6
COMPLETED PROJECTS: IN SITU THERMAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CONTINUED)
Site Name/Contact Vendor Treated Treated Parameters Handling Manage
Air Force Demo Radio frequency Soils Solvents & volatile & Power source is Heating, Off gas captured
Volk Field ANGB, WI (RF) thermal soil semivolatile petroleum 45 kW electric- volatilization surface or throug
decontamination hydro-carbons magnetic generator electrodes
1985, 1989, 1993
94-99%
Paul F. Carpenter decontamination in 12
(904) 523-6022 days
DOE Demo Hanford Six-phase soil Soils VOCs In situ 6 electrodes Off-gases must b
Reservation, WA heating placed around treated before
Resistive heating central extraction release
10/93 vent
W.O. Heath,
T.M. Bergsman
(509) 376-0554 or 3638
DOE Demo Thermally Soils VOCs In situ Resistive heating Off gas must be
Sandia National enhanced vapor Voltages: 200-1,600V & radio frequency treated
Laboratory, NM extraction Temp: 100 ?C heating
Fall 1993
Darrel Bandy
(505) 845-6100
James M. Phelan
(505) 845-9892
EPA Demo In situ steam & air Soil VOCs and SVOCs. Treatment rate of 3 Can also be used Water and air tre
3
Annex Terminal, San stripping Up to 55% SVOC yd /hr. Steam 450 ?F to treat soil with carbon. Tre
Pedro, CA removal; >85% VOC 450 psig. w/injection of water recycled in
removal Transportable reactive chemicals process.
1989 treatment unit includes
off-gas shroud &
Paul DePercin auger
(513) 569-7797 injection/extraction
wells.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1
3-28
TABLE 3-6
COMPLETED PROJECTS: IN SITU THERMAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CONTINUED)
EPA Demo In situ steam- Soils above and VOCs and SVOCs; Steam injected into Gasoline recovery Recovered
LeMoore NAS, CA enhanced below the water recovery 10x greater soil reduces treatment contaminants are
extraction (SEE) table than w/ vacuum required at either condensed
1988 extraction alone surface treated with extra
air or liquid
Paul DePercin
(513) 569-7797
EPA Demo Integrated Vapor Soil & Ground- Organics - In situ Groundwater Carbon should be
San Fernando Valley Extraction & Steam water up to 2.2 ppm TCE steam stripping regenerated ever
Groundwater Basin Vacuum Stripping up to 11 ppm PCE Groundwater 1,200 tower and SVE of hours
Superfund Site, CA gpm soil
Up to 99.99% removal
1990 Soil gas 300 ft/min
Norma Lewis
(513) 569-7665
EPA Demo Huntington Steam Enhanced Soils Diesel fuel spill In situ Steam injection NAPLs separated
Beach, CA Recovery Process gravity water
(SERP) treatment
1993
Paul DePercin
(513) 569-7797
EPA Demo Contained Soil Oily wastes - NAPLs, In situ Steam/hot water Oily waste brou
Pennsylvania Power and Recovery of Oily coal tar, PCP displacement surface
Light, PA Wastes (CROW? ) creosote, petroleum
hydrocarbons
1993
Eugene Harris
(513) 569-7862
Air Force & EPA Demo HRUBOUT ® Soils VOCs & SVOCs In situ. Operates Heated air Vapors to therma
Kelly AFB, TX Process 24 hours/day. injected below oxider
Hydrocarbons contamination.
Reinaldo Matias destroyed at
(513) 569-7149 1,500 ?F
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1
3-29
Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative SiteRemediation Technologies (FRTR, 1993).
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1
3-30
? 3.4 EX SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND

SLUDGE
The main advantage of ex situ treatment is that it generally requires shorter time
periods than in situ treatment, and there is more certainty about the uniformity of
treatment because of the ability to homogenize, screen, and continuously mix the
soil. However, ex situ treatment requires excavation of soils, leading to increased
costs and engineering for equipment, possible permitting, and material
handling/worker exposure considerations.
Bioremediation techniques are destruction or transformation techniques directed

toward stimulating the microorganisms to grow and use the contaminants as a food
and energy source by creating a favorable environmental for the microorganisms.
Generally, this means providing some combination of oxygen, nutrients, and
moisture, and controlling the temperature and pH. Sometimes, microorganisms
adapted for degradation of the specific contaminants are applied to enhance the
process.
Biological processes are typically easily implemented at low cost. Contaminants

can be destroyed or transformed, and little to no residual treatment is required;
however, the process requires more time and difficult to determine whether
contaminants have been destroyed. Biological treatment of PAHs leaves less
degradable PAHs (cPAHs) behind. These higher molecular cPAHs are classified as
carcinogens. Also, an increase in chlorine concentration leads to a decrease in
biodegradability. Some compounds, however, may be broken down into more toxic
by-products during the bioremediation process (e.g., TCE to vinyl chloride). An
advantage over the in situ applications is that in ex situ applications, these by-
products are contained in the treatment unit until nonhazardous end-products are
produced.
Although not all organic compounds are amenable to biodegradation,

bioremediation techniques have been successfully used to remediate soils, sludges,
and groundwater contaminated by petroleum hydrocarbons, solvents, pesticides,
wood preservatives, and other organic chemicals. Bioremediation is not generally
applicable for treatment of inorganic contaminants.

specific contaminants present; oxygen supply; moisture; nutrient supply; pH;
temperature; the availability of the contaminant to the microorganism (clay soils can
adsorb contaminants making them unavailable to the microorganisms); the
concentration of the contaminants (high concentrations may be toxic to the
microorganism); the presence of substances toxic to the microorganism, e.g.,
mercury; or inhibitors to the metabolism of the contaminant. These parameters are
discussed briefly in the following paragraphs.
Oxygen level in ex situ applications is easier to control than in in situ applications

and is typically maintained by mechanical tilling, venting, or sparging.
Anaerobic conditions may be used to degrade highly chlorinated contaminants.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009 \compgde.3a1 10/31/00
3-31
This can be followed by aerobic treatment to complete biodegradation of the

partially dechlorinated compounds as well as the other contaminants.
Water serves as the transport medium through which nutrients and organic
constituents pass into the microbial cell and metabolic waste products pass out of
the cell. Moisture levels in the range of 20% to 80% generally allow suitable
biodegradation in soils.
magnesium, calcium, manganese, iron, zinc, and copper. If nutrients are not
available in sufficient amounts, microbial activity will stop. Nitrogen and
phosphorous are the nutrients most likely to be deficient in the contaminated
environment and thus are usually added to the bioremediation system in a useable
form (e.g., as ammonium for nitrogen and as phosphate for phosphorous).

Temperature affects microbial activity in the treatment unit. The biodegradation

below freezing and will resume activity when the temperature rises. Too high a
soil. Compost piles require periodic tilling to release self -generated heat.

volatilization of contaminants at high temperatures. The solubility of contaminants
typically increases with increasing temperature; however, some hydrocarbons are
more soluble at low te mperatures than at high temperatures. Additionally, oxygen
solubility decreases with increasing temperature. Temperature is more easily
controlled ex situ than in situ.
Bioaugmentation involves the use of cultures that have been specially bred for
degradation of a variety of contaminants and sometimes for survival under
unusually severe environmental conditions. Sometimes microorganisms from the
remediation site are collected, separately cultured, and returned to the site as a
means of rapidly increasing the microorganism population at the site. Usually an
attempt is made to isolate and accelerate the growth of the population of natural
microorganisms that preferentially feed on the contaminants at the site. In some
situations different microorganisms may be added at different stages of the
remediation process because the contaminants in abundance change as the
degradation proceeds. USAF research, however, has found no evidence that the use
of non-native microorganisms is beneficial in the situations tested.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009 \compgde.3a1 10/31/00
3-32
Cometabolism, in which microorganisms growing on one compound produce an

enzyme that chemically transforms another compound on which they cannot grow,
has been observed to be useful. In particular, microorganisms that degrade methane
(methanotrophic bacteria) have been found to produce enzymes that can initiate the
oxidation of a variety of carbon compounds.

would be effective in a given situation. The extent of the study can vary depending
and moisture.
Available ex situ biological treatment technologies in clude composting, controlled

solid phase biological treatment, landfarming, and slurry phase biological treatment.
These technologies are discussed in Section 4 (Treatment Technology Profiles 4.10
through 4.13). Completed ex situ biological treatment proj ects for soil, sediment,
and sludge are shown in Table 3-7.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009 \compgde.3a1 10/31/00
3-33
TABLE 3-7
COMPLETED PROJECTS: EX SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE
EPA Remedial Action Land Soil/pond Criteria: Retention time- 3 to 6 Excavation Treated material
Brown Wood Preserving, treatment/Remedia sediment 100 ppm total months Screening vegetated with gr
3
FL tion Technologies, (7,500 yd ) carcinogenic PAHs as Tilling (no cap)
Seattle, WA sampled on 8 Additives - water and
10/88 to 12/91 subplots on each lift nutrients
Martha Berry Input:

(404) 347-2643 800 to 2,000 ppm
total creosote
contaminants
Output:
10 to 80 ppm total
carcinogenic
indicators
3
EPA Removal Action Land treatment and Soil (1,500 yd ) Input: Additives: water Excavation Leachate collecti
Poly-Carb, Inc., NV soil washing/EPA and treatment wit
removal contractor Phenol - 1,020 ppm Placement in granular activate
7/22/87 to 8/16/88 double-lined pit carbon
o-creosol - 100 ppm
Bob Mandel Irrigation
(415) 744-2290 m- and p-creosol -
409 ppm Tilling
Output:
Phenol - 1 ppm
o-creosol - 1 ppm
m- and p-creosol -
0.92 ppm
EPA Removal Action Land treatment/ Soil (16,000 Criteria: Additives: Tilling Output:
3
Scott Lumber, MO RETEC yd )
Chapel Hill, NC 500 ppm - Total PAH Water 160 ppm Total PA
8/87 to Fall 1991 Phosphates
14 ppm - 12 ppm
Bruce Morrison Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(a)pyrene
(913) 551-5014
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1
3-34
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1
3-35
TABLE 3-7
COMPLETED PROJECTS: EX SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CONTINUE
3
Matagorda Island Af Ex situ Soil (500 yd ) PAHs Batch process Excavated Backfilled the soi
Range, TX bioremediation; TPH - 3,400 ppm retention time: 3 approximately 40 into the excavatio
solid phase. All BTEX - 41.3 ppm months by 60 ft area.
10/92 to 2/28/93 constructed on Constructed on
abandoned Criteria: 9-inch layers treated poly barrier and
Vic Heister runway. Bacteria Texas Water clean sand base.
(918) 669-7222 added and Commission Ambient temperature Did some mixing.
mechanically standards bacteria added to
mixed. 100 ppm for TPH waste
30 ppm for BTEX
3
Navy Bioremediation (ex Soil (7,000 yd ) PAHs (petroleum Temperature, Excavation After 20 months o
Marine Corps situ); heap pile hydrocarbons, diesel), pressure, and operation, the TP
Mountain Warfare bioreactor. metals (lead) moisture content are levels were 120 p
Center monitored.
Bridgeport, CA
8/89 to 11/89
Diane Soderland
(907) 753-3425
Bill Major (DOD)
(805) 982-1808
3
Army Land treatment Soil (4,000 yd ) TCE, MEK, TPH, Initial concentration Ex situ None
Ft. Ord Marina, Fritzche BTEX >1,000 ppm
AAF Fire Drill Area, CA
Winter 1991 End concentration

<200 ppm
Gail Youngblood
(408) 242-8017
Army Demo Aerated static pile Lagoon TNT, HMX, RDX Thermophilic (55 ?C) Mixing Final concentrati
Louisiana Army composting sediments Initial concentrations: and mesophilic meso=376 mg/kg
Ammunition Plant, LA 17000 mg/kg. (35 ?C). Add bulking therm=74 mg/kg.
agents: horse reductions:
12/87 to 4/88 manure, alfalfa, straw, TNT=99.6/99.9
fertilizer, horse feed RDX=94.8/99.1
Peter Marks HMX=86.9/95.6
(610) 701-3039
Capt. Kevin Keehan
(410) 671-2054
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1
3-36
TABLE 3-7
Site Name/Contact Vendor Treated Treated Parameters Handling Managem
Army Demo Aerated static pile Soil & Nitrocellulose Thermophilic (55?C) Mixing Runoff collection
Badger Army composting sediments reduction > 99.5% and mesophilic (35?C) from composting
Ammunition Plant, WI pads
4/88 to 1/89
Peter Marks
(610) 701-3039
Capt. Kevin Keehan
(410) 671-2054
Army Demo Aerobic Soil & sediment TNT, HMX, RDX Maintain pH, Mix with bulking Runoff collection
3
Umatilla Depot Activity, composting (4,800 yd ) temperature, moisture agents & organic from composting
OR optimization content, oxygen amendments pads
content
Harry Craig
(503) 326-3689
Navy Demo Bioremediation of Soil & 1 ppb to 4 ppm of 3 80-litre bioreactors at Site soil placed in Effluent cleaned
Naval Weapons Station aromatic groundwater BTEX 72 L/day reactor – drinking water
Seal Beach, CA hydrocarbons – groundwater standards for BT
unleaded gasoline pumped through
Steve McDonald spill
(310) 594-7273
Carmen Lebron
(805) 982-1615
EPA SITE Demo Liquids & solids Soils, Biodegradable Suspended solids up Mixing & aeration Managed by carb
biological treatment sediments, & organics to 20% adsorption &
Ronald Lewis (LST) sludge biofiltration
(513) 569-7856
Merv Cooper
(206) 624-9349
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1
3-37
TABLE 3-7
EPA SITE Demo Bioslurry reactor Soils, 97% reduction in Degradation enhanced Excavation,
EPA Test & Evaluation sediments, & PAHs by control of pH, mixing, additives,
Facility, OH sludge temperature, oxygen, sparging —
nutrients, and enriched
5/91 to 9/91 indigenous
microorganisms
Ronald Lewis
(513) 569-7856
3
Navy Demo Enzyme catalyzed, Soil TPH reduced from 50 yd /month capacity Soil tilled with a No residual wast
Camp Pendleton, CA accelerated 29,000 ppm to 88 garden tractor produced. No fu
biodegradation ppm (well below 100 after each product maintenance
1991 ppm goal) application and required
once each week
William Sancet
(619) 725-3868
Army Demo Soil slurry- Soil TNT, RDX, HMX In tank or reactor Excavation and Slurry removed &
Joliet Army Ammunition sequencing batch pre-screening (to dewatered; proce
Plant, IL bioreactor TNT reduced from remove large water recycled
1,300 to 10 ppm debris)
1992
Kevin Keehan
(410) 671-2054
EPA Demo Biogenesis_ Soil Organics - oils, fuels, 30-65 tons/hour Agitation in unit Wash water
Santa Maria, CA soil washing PCBs, PAHs with surfactant oil/water separati
process 85-99% removal of filter and bioreac
5/92 hydrocarbons with
initial concentration up
Annette Gatchett to 15,000 ppm
(513) 569-7697

MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1
3-38
? 3.5 EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT,

AND SLUDGE
periods than in situ treatment, and there is more certainty about the uniformity of
treatment because of the ability to homogenize, screen, and continuously mix the
soil. Ex situ treatment, however, requires excavation of soils, leading to increased
costs and engineering for equipment, possible permitting, and material handling.

contaminated medium to destroy (i.e, chemically convert), separate, or contain the
contamination. Chemical reduction/oxidation and dehalogenation (BCD or
glycolate) are destruction technologies. Soil washing, SVE, and solvent extraction
are separation techniques, and S/S is an immobilization technique.

project costs and may require permits.
Available ex situ physical/chemical treatment technologies include chemical

reduction/oxidation, dehalogenation (BCD or g lycolate), soil washing, SVE, S/S,
and solvent extraction. These technologies are discussed in Section 4 (Treatment
Technology Profiles 4.14 through 4.20). Completed ex situ physical/chemical
treatment projects for soil, sediment, and sludge are shown in Table 3-8.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009 \compgde.3a1 10/31/00
3-39
TABLE 3-8
COMPLETED PROJECTS: EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE
EPA Remedial Action SVE/Terra Vac, Soil Criteria: Ambient conditions Ex situ Discharge of soil
Upjohn Manufacturing Inc., Costa Mesa, vapors through 3
Company, PR CA Initial concentrations stack
- 70 ppm (carbon
1/83 to 3/88 tetrachloride to air)
Alison Hess Final concentrations

(212) 264-6040 - nondetect (<0.002
ppm)
EPA Remedial Action Chemical Soil (13,000 Input: Soil - Batch process (1) Used sodium Soil - solidified an
3
Palmetto Wood treatment and soil yd ) metaphosphate to replaced on-
Preserving, SC washing; reduction Arsenic - 2 to 6,200 Treatment for aqueous lower pH to 2.0
of hexavalent ppm waste from soil and wash the Wastewater
9/28/88 to 2/8/89 chromium to washing - 25 gpm chromium from permitted dischar
trivalent Chromium - 4 to the soil, (2) to the sewer line
McKenzie Mallary chromium/En-site 6,200 ppm pH - 2 to 9 separated the soil
(404) 347-7791 (ERCS contractor) and solution, (3) Sludge - off-
Atlanta, GA Output: solidified the soils, disposal
and (4) used the
Arsenic - less than 1 ferrous ion
ppm method of
reduction to
Chromium - 627 ppm precipitate the
chromium from
solution in trivalent
form
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1
3-40
TABLE 3-8
COMPLETED PROJECTS: EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CO
EPA Remedial Action APEG Soil (40,000 Criteria: Continuous process Excavation Treated soil
3
Wide Beach dechlorination/ yd ) PCB - <10 ppm (1 Screening disposed of
Development, NY Soil Tech composite 8 tons/hour Staging
Denver, CO sample/day) 200 to 580 ?C (450 to
9/90 to 9/91 1,100 ?F)
Input: Ambient pH and
Herb King moisture
(212) 264-1129 10 to 100 ppm PCB
Additives - Alkaline
Output: polyethylene glycol
(APEG)
2 ppm PCB
EPA Removal Action Solvent Solids PCBs Solvent addition Excavation Treated solid;
Traband Warehouse extraction/Terra- Initial: 7,500 ppm concentrated
PCBs, OK Clean contaminant
2/90 to 9/90
Pat Hammack
(214) 655-2270
EPA Removal Action Neutralization with Film chips (464 Cyanide Time: 2 to 3 hours Agitation Rinse water, runo
PBM Enterprises, MI hypochlorite tons or 1,280 and waste
3
process/Mid- yd ) Input: 200 ppm Additives: sodium hypochlorite
3/25/85 to 10/28/85 American hydroxide off-site
Environmental Output: 20 ppm
Ross Powers Service Treated chips
(312) 378-7661 Riverdale, IL landfilled (Subtitl
3
EPA Removal Action Chemical Soil (200 yd ) Methyl parathion pH: 9.0 Tilling Treated soil
Stanford Pesticide Site treatment - alkaline Moisture: wet
No. 1, AZ hydrolysis/EPA Input: 24.2 ppm Additives to soil: soda (in situ, 3 times
removal contractor ash, water, activated per week)
3/20/87 to 11/4/87 Output: 0.05 ppm carbon
Dan Shane
(415) 744-2286
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1
3-41
TABLE 3-8
EPA Removal Action Solvent extraction/ Sludge (3,448 Input: Continuous operation Excavation Oil - used as fuel
General Refining Resource tons) Screening kiln
Company, GA Conservation PCB - 5.0 ppm Time: 2 hours Neutralization
Technology pH: 10 Size Reduction Water - treated,
8/86 to 10/86 Company Bellevue, Lead - 10,000 ppm Temp: 20 ?C Mixing discharged off
and 1/87 to 2/87 WA Rate: 27 tons/day
Output: Moisture content: 60% Solids - solidified
Shane Hitchcock and disposed of o
(404) 347-3136 PCB - insignificant Additives: site
Lead - concentrated in Sodium hydroxide

solids Triethylamine
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1
3-42
TABLE 3-8
3
EPA Removal Action Vacuum extraction Soil (2,000 yd ) VOCs Vacuum pressure Surface Residual soils an
Basket Creek Surface of soil pile with TCE, PCE, MEK, monitored. 1,300- impoundment rejects from
Impoundment, GA horizontal wells (ex MIBK, BTEX CFM/manifold. used for disposal screening met TC
situ)/OHM High 33% VOCs 3 manifolds of waste solvents. limits and were
11/92 to 2/93 Average 1 to 5% 6 to 7 wells/manifold Built an enclosure disposed of as
over the site. nonhazardous in
Don Rigger Criteria: Excavated the soil RCRA Subtitle D
(404) 347-3931 TCE - 0.5 mg/L TCLP and screened it landfill. Incinerat
PCE - 0.7 mg/L TCLP with a power 70,000 lb of VOC
All VOCs met TCLP screen. Stacked
limits on PVC extraction
wells. Recovered
VOCs with duct
work and fan.
Vapors
incinerated.
EPA Removal Action Chemical Solid (100 lb) Mercury initial Added salt to Mercury Residual salts
Zhiegner Refining treatment/ENSCO concentration >10% precipitate the mercury pretreatment containing less th
Company mercury precipitated 260 ppm mercury
mercury salts into were incinerated
2/93 to 6/93 Final concentration of mercury sulfide so site.
mercury in recyclable that the mercury
Dilshad Perera precipitate was >80%. can be recovered
(908) 321-4356 and recycled
Less than 260 ppm if
mercury in tank
nonrecycled salt.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1
3-43
TABLE 3-8
EPA Removal Action Chemical Solid (100 lb) Mercury initial Added salt to Mercury Residual salts
Vineland Chemical treatment/ENSCO concentration >10% precipitate the mercury pretreatment containing less th
Company, NJ mercury precipitated 260 ppm mercury
mercury salts into were incinerated
12/92 Final concentration of mercury sulfide so site
mercury in recyclable that the mercury
Don Graham precipitate was >80%. can be recovered
(908) 321-4345 and recycled
Less than 260 ppm of
mercury in
nonrecycled salt.
EPA Removal Action KPEG Sludge (15 Dioxin Temperature: 150?C Excavation Incineration of
Signo Trading dechlorination/ gallons) residuals (withou
International, Inc.,NY Galson Input: 135 ppm Time: Overnight dioxin contami
Remediation, nation) at treatme
10/20/87 to 10/21/87 Syracuse, NY Output: 1 ppb storage, and
disposal facility
Charles Fitzsimmons
(201) 321-6608
EPA Removal Action Chemical Sludge/water Carbon disulfide Batch operation Pumping Salts from the
Avtex Fibers, VA treatment from storage average retention time reaction were
(oxidation using unit (2 million Criteria: ? 10 ppm - - 1 hour removed with
4/90 to 8/91 NaClO)/OH gallons) carbon disulfide in the pH - 10 flocculation a
Materials, Findlay, effluent clarification at
Vincent Zenone OH (ERCS Additives: sodium existing treatmen
(215) 597-3038 contractor) Input: 50 to 200,000 hypochloride plant, pH adjustm
ppm carbon disulfide
The retention time and
Output: ? 10 ppm - reagent feed rates
carbon disulfide increased with
increasing
concentration of
sludge in the
contaminated water.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1
3-44
TABLE 3-8
3
Army Soil washing; water Sediment (150 PCBS 30 yd of sediment Dredging Residuals were le
3
Saginaw Bay Confined with flocculent and yd ) treated per day Screening at the facility
Disposal Facility, MI surfactant as an Size reduction
additive/Bermann Wastewater
10/91 to 6/4/92 USA, Stafford discharged to
Springs, CT confined disposa
Jim Galloway facility
(313) 226-6760
EPA & Navy Demo Chemical Soil Dioxin, herbicides, Soil heated to 100-150 Excavation, Water Products are not
EPA Lab, NJ detoxification of chlorinated aromatic ?C if dehydrated content assessed. toxic nor
chlorinated compounds. 99.9% biodegradable
Deh Bin Chan aromatic decontamination
(805) 982-4191 compounds achieved
EPA Demo Chemical Soil, sediments, Organic compounds, In/ex situ. Sediments - Blending Hardened concre
Douglassville, PA treatment & & sludge heavy metals, oil, & underwater. Batch like mass
immobilization grease process at 120
10/87 tons/hour.
Paul R. DePercin
(513) 569-7797
DOE Demo Physical Sediments Radionuclides & Contaminants Screening, Solidification,
INEL, ID separation/ metals removed from leachate segregation, calcining leachat
chemical extraction by ion exchange, leaching with hot storage
1992 reverse osmosis, nitric acid
precipitation, or
Robert Montgomery evaporation
(208) 525-3937
EPA Demo SAREX chemical Soil & sludge Low level metals & Catalyzed by lime and Blending with Vapors are scrub
Midwest, California, fixation process organics proprietary reagents reagent, mixing, and processed
Australia heating, curing before release
1987
S. Jackson Hubbard
(513) 569-7507
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1
3-45
TABLE 3-8
COMPLETED PROJECTS: EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (C
EPA Demo BEST? solvent Oily sludges & PCBs, PAHs, pH >10 Hydrophobic and Separation into o
Grand Calumet River extraction process soil pesticides hydrophilic cycles water, and clean
Site, IL by controlling solids
temperature
1992
Mark Meckes
(513) 569-7348
EPA Demo Biogenesis_ Soil Organics - oil, fuel, 30-65 tons/hour Agitated in unit Washwater
Santa Maria, CA soil washing PCBs, PAHs with surfactant oil/water separato
process 99% hydrocarbon filter, and bioreac
5/92 removal with initial
concentration up to
Annette Gatchett 15,000 ppm
(513) 569-7697
DOE Demo Enhanced Soil Soil & debris Heavy metals, Particles smaller than Screening, Clean soil & debr
Clemson Technical Washing with radionuclides, and 2 inches dissolution, recycle water, off
Center, SC Soil*EX_ organics surfactant addition gas from organic
concentrated
Doug Mackensie contaminants
(208) 526-6265
EPA Demo RENEU? Soil Organics up to Operated under Sand, clay, and Clean soil backfil
extraction 325,000 ppm vacuum - 5-45 soil up to 3 in.
1992 technology tons/hour diameter
Michelle Simon
(513) 569-7469
EPA & DOE Demo Soil washer for Soils Radionuclides - 1 ton/hour Attrition mills and Filter press and o
Montclair, West Orange radioactive soil 56% volume reduction hydro-classifiers site disposal
& Glen Ridge Sites, NJ 40 pCu/g to 11 pCu/g
Mike Eagle
(202) 233-9376
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1
3-46
TABLE 3-8
Army Demo Soil washing Oxidation Cd, Ni, Pb, Cu Soil treated with wash Wash liquid Precipitated meta
Sacramento Army Depot, lagoon soils reagent to extract neutralized with landfilled
3
CA (12,000 yd ) contaminants caustic to
precipitate metals
1992
Marlin Mezquita
(415) 744-2393
DOE Demo Soil washing Soil Uranium Soil and leachant Attrition Wastewater
Fernald Site, OH attrition scrubbed for 1 scrubbing, treatment require
minute to solubilize gravity separation,
Kimberly Nonfer uranium screening
(513) 648-6556
EPA Demo Soil washing/ Soil, sludge, & Organics - Soil washing Soil particles Oxidation of
Coleman-Evans Site, FL catalytic ozone groundwater up to 20,000 ppm enhanced by greater than 1 wastewater, carb
oxidation ultrasound inch are crushed for off-gas
Norma Lewis
(513) 569-7665
EPA Demo Soil washing plant Soil Heavy metals, Rate dependent on Deagglomera-tion, Concentrated
Alaska Battery radionuclides percentage of soil density contaminant
Enterprises Superfund fines - up to 20 separation, and containerized, liq
Site, AK tons/hour material sizing recirculated clean
soil
1992
Hugh Masters
(908) 321-6678
EPA Demo Soil washing Soil Removal: 500 lb/hour Debris Wastewater treat
MacGillis & Gibbs system 24 hour/day prescreening, soil in fixed film
Superfund Site, MN 89% PCP mixed with water, bioreactor
88% PAHs separation
1989 (operations similar
to mineral
Mary Stinson processing
(908) 321-6683 operations)
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1
3-47
TABLE 3-8
EPA Demo Solvent extraction Soil, sludge, PCB 300-2,500 ppm Tray tower for water; Phase-separation Heavy metal fixat
New Bedford Harbor, MA and wastewater 90-98% removal extractor/decantors for with solvent, then Class I landf
& O'Connor Site, ME solids and semi-solids solvent recovery
3/91 to 3/92
Laurel Staley
(513) 569-7863
EPA Demo Volume reduction Soils Organics - creosote Up to 100 lb/hour Particle separation Concentrated
Pensacola, FL unit PCP, pesticides, and solubilization contaminant
PAHs, VOCs,
11/92 SVOCs, metals
Teri Richardson
(513) 569-7949
EPA Demo Precipitation, Sludge & Heavy metals, non- Up to 5% solids, 30 Heavy metal Filter cakes
Iron Mountain Mine Site, microfiltration & leachable soil volatile organics & lb/hour of solids, 10 precipitation, 40-60% solids, w
CA sludge dewatering solvents, oil, grease, gpm of wastewater filtration, recycled
pesticides, bacteria, concentrated
1990 to 1991 solids stream dewatering
S. Jackson Hubbard
(513) 569-7507
EPA SITE Demo Chemfix process - Soil & Sludge Solid waste Uses soluble silicates Blend waste with Produces friable
Portable Equip. Salvage solidification/stabili and silicate-settling dry alumina, solids. Cu and P
Co. Clackamas, OR zation agents calcium, and TCLP extracts we
silica-based reduced 94-
9/89 reagents
Edwin Barth
(513) 569-7669
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1
3-48
TABLE 3-8
Navy Demo Solidification of Blasting wastes Lead, copper, and About 2 months Mixing of asphalt <1% inert debris
Naval Const. Battalion Spent blasting containing heavy metals required for design and other (wood and metal
Ctr. abrasives, grit, aggregates scrap) is produce
Port Hueneme, CA sands
2/91 to 2/92
Jeff Heath
(805) 982-1657
EPA SITE Demo Solidification/stabili Soil, sludge, Organics and Uses proprietary Large debris must Non-leaching hig
Robins AFB Macon, GA zation liquid inorganics bonding agents be prescreened strength monolith
8/91
Terry Lyons
(513) 569-7589
EPA SITE Demo Solidification/stabili Groundwater, Organics and Silicate compounds Pretreatment PCP leachate
Selma Pressure Treating zation with silicate soil, sludge inorganics separation of concentrations
Selma, CA compounds coarse and fine reduced up to 96
materials As, Cr, and Cu
11/90 immobilized.
Edward Bates
(513) 569-7774
Imperial Oil Soliditech Soil, sludge Inorganics and Add water, Urrichem Screen waste and Heavy metals in
Co./Champion Chemical solidification/ organics, metals, ore, (proprietary additives), introduce into untreated waste
Co. Superfund Site stabilization grease and pozzolanic batch mixer were immobilized
Morganville, NJ process material (fly ash or kiln VOCs not detecte
dust) in treated waste.
12/88
S. Jackson Hubbard
(513) 569-7507
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1
3-49
TABLE 3-8
Small Arms Range, Stabilization of Soil Lead and other heavy Soil is mixed with Screen soil to TCLP reduced fro
Naval Air Station small arms range metals sodium silicate, remove bullets (to 720 to 0.9 ppm P
Mayport, FL portland cement, and be recycled) and to 0.2 ppm Cu, 4.
water other debris 0.2 ppm Zn
1990 (landfill)
Barbara Nelson
(805) 982-1668

MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a1
3-50
? 3.6 EX SITU THERMAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND

SLUDGE
The main advantage of ex situ treatments is that they generally require shorter time
periods, and there is more certainty about the uniformity of treatment because of the
ability to screen, homogenize, and continuously mix the soils. Ex situ processes,
however, require excavation of soils leading to increased costs and engineering for
equipment, possible permitting, and materials handling worker safety issues.
Thermal treatments offer quick cleanup times but are typically the most costly
treatment group. This difference, however, is less in ex situ applications than in in
situ applications. Cost is driven by energy and equipment costs and is both capital
and O&M-intensive.
Thermal processes use heat to increase the volatility (separation); burn, decompose,
or detonate (destruction); or melt (immobilization) the contaminants. Separation
technologies include thermal desorption and hot gas decontamination. Destruction
technologies include incineration, open burn/open detonation, and pyro lysis.
Vitrification immobilizes inorganics and destroys some organics.
Separation technologies will have an off-gas stream requiring treatment.

Destruction techniques typically have a solid residue (ash) and possibly a liquid
residue (from the air pollution control equipment) that will require treatment or
disposal. If the treatment is conducted on-site, the ash may be suitable for use as
clean fill, or may be placed in an on-site monofill. If the material is shipped off-site
for treatment, it will typically be disposed of in a landfill that may require
pretreatment prior to disposal. It should be noted that for separation and destruction
techniques, the residual that requires treatment or disposal is a much smaller volume
than the original. Vitrification processes usually produce a slag of decreased
volume compared to untreated soil because they drive off moisture and eliminate air
spaces. A possible exception can occur if large quantities of fluxing agent are
required to reduce the melting point o f the contaminated soil.
Available ex situ thermal treatment technologies include high temperature thermal

desorption, hot gas decontamination, incineration, low temperature thermal
desorption, open burning/open detonation, pyrolysis, and vitrification. These
technologies are discussed in Section 4 (Treatment Technology Profiles 4.21 through
4.27). Completed ex situ thermal treatment projects for soil, sediment, and sludge
are shown in Table 3-9.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009 \compgde.3a2 10/31/00
3-48
TABLE 3-9
COMPLETED PROJECTS: EX SITU THERMAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE
3
EPA Remedial Action Thermal Soil (11,500 yd VOCs Criteria: Continuous operation Excavation Soils - solidified a
McKin, ME desorption/ to a depth of 10 0.1 ppm TCE disposed of
Canonie Env. ft) 6 to 8 minutes' on-site
7/86 to 2/87 Services Corp., Input: retention time
Porter, IN Up to 1,000 ppm TCE Vapors - air carbo
Sheila Eckman 300 ?F capture
(617) 573-5784 Output: 0.1 ppm
3
EPA Remedial Action Thermal Soil (6,000 yd ) TCE, PCE, DCA, Batch process Excavation Carbon from air
Otteti & Goss, NH desorption/ benzene Screening pollution control u
Canonie regenerated off
6/89 to 9/89 Engineering Criteria:
1 ppm - Total VOCs
Stephen Calder and
(617) 573-9626 <100 ppm - Each
individual VOC
Output: <1 ppm -

Total VOCs
EPA Remedial Action Thermal Soil/sediments PCBs Continuous with a Excavation Cleaned soil and
3)
Outboard desorption/ (16,000 yd ) retention time of 15 Mixing sediment stored
Marina/Waukegan Canonie Initial 20,000- minutes and Dewatering on-site containme
Harbor (OU 3), IL Environmental 100,000 ppm 99% throughput of 8 to 10 cells. Wastewate
Services removal tons/hour discharged to
1/92 to 7/92 Porter, IN POTW.
Temperature 1,100?F
Cindy Nolan
(312) 886-0400 Moisture content 20%
or less soda ash
added to waste to
meet DRE of
99.9999%
EPA Remedial Action Thermal soil Soil (11,300 Criteria: Continuous operation Excavation Residuals from a
Cannon Engineering/MA aeration/Canonie tons) Screening pollution control
Environmental 0.1 ppm - TCE, DCE, 40 tons/hour Mixing disposed of off
5/90 to 10/90 Services Corp., PCE Dewatering
Porter, IN 450 to 500 ?F Wastewater
Richard Goehlert 0.2 - Toluene, Xylene on-site
(617) 573-5742 Moisture content
0.5 - Vinyl chloride before treatment- 5 to
25% moisture
SVOCs - 3 ppm
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a2
3-49
TABLE 3-9
COMPLETED PROJECTS: EX SITU THERMAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CONTINUED)

(total) Additives - dry soil (to
reduce moisture
Input: content)
500 to 3,000 ppm
(total VOCs)
Output:
<0.25 ppm (total
VOCs)
EPA Removal Action Low temperature Soil 3,000 tons Petroleum 16 hours/day Excavation Treated soil was
Drexler-RAMCOR, WA thermal desorption (approximately hydrocarbons, 12 to 15 tons/hour Screening backfilled into the
3
treatment. 3,000 yd ) polynuclear Removed material excavated areas
7/92 to 8/92 Thermally treat aromatics, BTEX Operating temperature greater than 2 site. Soil that did
3,000 tons of soil (benzene, toluene, up to 700 ?F inches. meet the targets
Chris Field on-site up to ethylbenzene, xylene) Rockwashing retreated.
(206) 553-1674 700 ?F/Four station for Wastewater was
Seasons 200-ppm TPH was particles greater treated on-site
target. Initial TPH than 2 inches. through carbon
was 70,000 ppm Steam-cleaned filters.
(high) to 15,000 - large rocks.
20,000 ppm (average)
EPA Demo Anaerobic thermal Soil & refinery PCBs (99% Thermal zones: Mixing occurs in Vaporized
Wide Beach processor wastes reduction), chlorinated preheat, retort, rotary kiln contaminant stre
Development Superfund pesticides, & VOCs combustion, & cooling through cyclone,
Site, NY & Outboard baghouse, scrubb
Marine Corp., IL and carbon.
1991 & 1992
Paul dePercin
(513) 569-7797
EPA Demo Cyclone Furnace Soil Organics & metals 820 ?F Swirling action Final product
Babcock & Wilcox, OH mixes air & fuel resembles volcan
Laurel Staley glass (similar to
(513) 569-7863 ISV's product)
EPA Demo High-Temperature Solids & VOCs, SVOCs, & 850 ?F, 150 ?F for safe Rotation of Controlled by an
Niagara-Mohawk Power Thermal Processor sludges PCBs handling screws moves indirect condensi
Co., NY material system & activate
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a2
3-50
TABLE 3-9

carbon beds
6/91
Ronald Lewis
(513) 569-7856
EPA Demo Low-Temperature Soils, Removal efficiencies: 800 ?F Dry, pug mill, Treated exhaust
Pesticide Site, AZ Thermal Aeration sediments & >99%-VOCs @ cyclonic and liquid with G
(LTTA®) sludges 5,400 mg/kg separators,
9/92 baghouse, venturi Does not genera
>92%-pesticides scrubber, GAC. dioxins or furans.
Paul dePercin @ 1,500 mg/kg
(513) 569-7797
Chetan Trivedi 67-96% SVOCs @
(219) 926-7169 6.5 mg/kg
Army Demo Letterkenny Low-Temperature Soil VOCs (chlorinated Up to 650 ?F Churning - Holo- Gaseous effluent
Army Depot, PA Thermal Stripping solvents & fuels); Flite screw with concentrated
99.9% destruction thermal processor contaminants.
8/85 to 9/85
Capt. Kevin Keehan

(410) 671-2054
Mike Cosmos
(610) 701-7423
EPA & Army Demo Low-Temperature Soil VOCs & SVOCs; Area required: 5,000 Covered troughs Organic phases a
2
Tinker AFB, OK Thermal Treatment diesel fuel, gasoline & ft . Soil heated to 400- that house inter- disposed of off
3®
& Anderson (LT ) PAHs 500 ?F. Treatment meshed screw
Development Co. capacity was 18,000- conveyors.
Superfund Site, MI 20,000 lb/hour.
1989
Paul dePercin
(513) 569-7797
Capt. Kevin Keehan
(410) 671-2054
Mike Cosmos
(610) 701-7423
DOE Demo Molten salt Liquids & solids Radionuclides 800-1,000 ?C Typical Waste passed Off-gas filtered
Energy Technology oxidation process organics, oils, residence time is 2 through a sparged before release
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a2
3-51
TABLE 3-9

Engineering Center, graphite, chemical seconds bed of turbulent
ORNL, LANL warfare agents, & molten salt.
explosives
Lawnie H. Taylor
(301) 903-8119
EPA & DOE Demo Plasma ARC Soils & sludge Organics & metals 2,800-3,000 ?F in Fed into sealed Organic laden va
Component Development vitrification plasma centrifugal centrifuge & stream and meta
& Integration Facility, MT furnace heated to 1,800 laden vitrified ma
?F. Organics are
1991 evaporated.
Laurel Staley
(513) 569-7863
R.C. Eschenback
(707) 462-6522
DOI Demo Vitrification furnace Solids Residues from Electric arc furnace Dedicated feeder Glassy slag an
Albany Metallurgy Incineration of with water-cooled roof and off-gas metallic phase
Research Center, OR municipal waste & sidewalls treatment.
Paul C. Turner
(503) 967-5863
EPA Demo X*TRAX? thermal Soil VOCs, SVOCs, & Heated rotary dryer, Separation Negligible organi
ReSolve, Inc., Superfund desorption PCBs 750-950 ?F technique emission. No PC
Site, MA detected in vent
Average PCB removal gases
1992 efficiency: 99%
Paul dePercin
(513) 569-7797
Carl Palmer
(803) 646-2413
EPA SITE Demo Ogden Circulating bed Soil, sludge, Halogenated and non- Combustion through Mixing wastes Below permit leve
Rsc Facility, San Diego, combustor liquids, solids, halogenated organic hot cyclone (1,450- Limestone added
CA slurry compounds, PCBs, 1,600 ?F) to neutralize acid
dioxins gases
3/89
Douglas Grosse
(513) 569-7844
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a2
3-52
TABLE 3-9

EPA SITE Demo HRD flame reactor Wastes, soil, Metals (zinc, lead, Combustion in O2 Requires dry Nonleachable sla
Monaca, PA solids, fluid, arsenic, silver, gold) enriched chamber at wastes disposal in landfi
+
dust, slag, and organics 2,000 ? C
1991 sludge with
high metal
Donald Oberacker content
(513) 569-7510
EPA SITE Demos Infrared thermal Soil, sediment, Organics Infrared radiant heat of May need to PCBs consistentl
(1) Tampa, FL, 8/87 destruction liquid organic up to 1,850 ?F restrict chloride meet TSCA
(2) Rose Township/ wastes mixed levels in the feed guidance
Demode Road Super- with sand or 2 ppm in ash
fund Site, MI, 11/87 soil
John F. Martin
(513) 569-7696
EPA SITE Demo PYRETRON® Soil, sludge, Organics O2 enhanced 40% DRE for all POHC
EPA Combustion thermal destruction solid waste combustion contaminated soil, >99.99%
Research Facility, 60% decanter
Jefferson, AK tank tar sludge
from coking
11/87 to 1/88 operations
Laurel Staley
(513) 569-7863

MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a2
3-53
? 3.7 OTHER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR SOIL,

SEDIMENT, AND
SLUDGE
Other treatment technologies for soil, sediment, and sludge include excavation and
off-site disposal, containment technologies, a nd natural attenuation. These
treatments are discussed in more detail in Section 4 (Treatment Technology Profiles
4.28 and 4.29). Completed projects for other treatment technologies for soil,
sediment, and sludge are shown in Table 3-10.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009 \compgde.3a2 10/31/00
3-54
TABLE 3-10
COMPLETED PROJECTS: OTHER TREATMENTS FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE
EPA Demo Carver-Greenfield Soils, Oil soluble organics- 5-10 lb of "carrier oil" Extracted oil Dry final solids
Edison, NJ Process sediments, & 100% TPH and 95% added for 1 lb of soil mixture separated product with less
sludges oil removal in oil/water than 1% carrier o
1991 separator
Laurel Staley
(513) 569-7863
EPA Demo Debris washing Debris Reduction- Spray detergent and 300-gallon spray Wash solution
Carter Industrial, MI system PCB to 10 µg/100 water @ 140 ?F, and waste tank treated oil/water
2
Shaver's Farm, GA cm 60 lb/psig separator, filter,
Hopkinsville, KY Benzonitrile from carbon, and ion
4,556 to 10 µg/100 exchange
2
Naomi Berkley cm
(513) 569-7854 Dicamba from 25 to 1
2
µg/100 cm
DOI, Army, EPA Demo Particle Separation Sediments PCBs, heavy metals, Contaminant and grain Screening, water Output soil, silts,
3
Saginaw Bay Confined Process (30 yd /day) radionuclides size analysis and chemicals clays, and waste
Disposal Facility, MI; added, attrition water
Toronto, Canada scrubbing, particle
separation
10/91 to 6/92
S. Jackson Hubbard
(513) 569-7507
EPA Demo MAECTITE? Soils, sludges, Lead Up to 100 tons/hour; Blending with Soil-like residual
IN, MI, OH, SD, VA, WI other waste curing for 4 hours proprietary powder reduced volume
materials, & and reagent suitable for landf
1992 debris solution a special waste
S. Jackson Hubbard
(513) 569-7507
EPA Demo Membrane Liquid wastes Solid particles in li- Filter press 45 psi Tyvek (T-980) Filter cake
Palmerton Zinc microfiltration quid wastes-removal spun-bound olefin 40-60% solids
Superfund Site, PA averaged 99.95% for filter
Zn & TSS
1990
John Martin
(513) 569-7758
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a2
3-55
TABLE 3-10
COMPLETED PROJECTS: OTHER TREATMENTS FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CONTINUED)

EPA Demo Soil recycling Soils Organics and Inorganics extracted; Soil washing, Metals recovered
Toronto Port Industrial Inorganics organics extracted and metal dissolution, pure form. Reus
District, Canada biodegraded. chemical fill
hydrolysis with
1991 biodegradation
Teri Richardson
(513) 569-7949
EPA Demo Thermal gas phase Soil, sludge, Hydrocarbons 850 ?C on-line mass Reduction of Offgas stream
Hamilton Harbor, Canada reduction liquids, & gases spectrometer hydrocarbons in
presence of
1992 hydrogen
Gordon Evans
(513) 569-7684
DOE Integrated Demo Mixed waste landfill In situ landfills Mixed wastes Integration of existing Characterization Goal is to remove
(1,2) Chemical and in arid containing heavy technologies, including and remediation most rapidly mov
Mixed Waste Landfills, environments metals in complex thermally enhanced technology demos consti-tuents, and
Albuquerque, NM which contain mixtures with organic, vapor extraction isolate the remain
(3) Mixed Waste Landfill complex inorganic, and system, flexible ing constituents f
at Kirkland AFB, NM mixtures radioactive wastes membrane lining 30 years (interim
system, and directional permanently.
Jennifer Nelson drilling
(505) 845-8348
DOE Integrated Demo, Organics in soil Soils, Volatile organics, Integrated demo Directional well Integrated demo
DOE and groundwater at groundwater @ such as TCE and includes many drilling precedes includes many
Savannah River Site, nonarid sites nonarid sites PCE technologies- no the in situ air technologies
Aiken, GA emphasizing in specific parameters stripping specific paramete
situ remediation given given
Terry Walton
(803) 725-5218
DOE Integrated Demo, Underground Groundwater, Tank waste consti- UST-ID is pursuing Integrated demo Integrated demo
4 DOE sites; at (1) storage tanks soil tuents ranging from technologies in two includes many includes many
Hanford emphasizing the Na-nitrates to trans- general areas: technologies- no technologies
(2) Fernald, ID single-shell storage uranics, in 3 forms: characterization/retriev specific specific paramete
(3) Oak Ridge tanks located at the supernatant (liquid), al technolo-gies & parameters given given
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a2
3-56
TABLE 3-10
COMPLETED PROJECTS: OTHER TREATMENTS FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CONTINUED)

(4) Savannah River Hanford site. sludges, and salt- separations/low-level
cake (which can be as waste technologies.
2/91 hard as cement) No/few specific
parameters available
Roger Gilchrist
(509) 376-5310
DOE Integrated Demo, Uranium soil Soil Uranium Selective extraction of Extraction without Concentrated
Fernald Environmental uranium. Char- physio-chemical uranium stream
Project acterize uranium in- damage to soil
Cincinnati, OH volved (especially
dominant hexavalent
Kimberly Nonfer oxidation state)
(513) 648-6914
DOI Tech Demo Borehole slurry Soils, especially Uranium, oil Soil is reduced in situ Soil is reduced in After treatment
Tests conducted in St. extraction sand, stone, or to a pumpable slurry. situ to a pumpable waste material is
John's County, FL clays Single 6 to 12-inch- slurry pumped back into
diameter borehole cavity to prevent
George A. Savanick surface subsiden
U.S. Bureau of Mines
5629 Minnehaha Ave.,
South Minneapolis, NJ
55417
DOI Tech Demo Characterization Sediment Organics and Physical separation Volume reduction Physical separati
(EPA & Bureau of Mines) and treatment of inorganics (mineral processing) followed by more is considered
Bureau of Mines Salt contaminated technologies, including expensive pretreatment, as
Lake City Research Great Lakes magnetic separation, treatment some smaller
Center sediment gravity separation, and amount of
froth flotation, being concentrated
4/90 investigated material will requ
further
J.P. Allen decontamination
(801) 584-4147
Sources: Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report (EPA, 1993).

MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a2
3-57
? 3.8 IN SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FOR GROUNDWATER, SURFACE

WATER, AND LEACHATE
The main advantage of in situ treatment is that it allows groundwater to be treated
without being brought to the surface, resulting in significant cost savings. In situ
treatment, however, generally requires longer time periods, and there is less certainty
about the uniformity of treatment because of the variability in aquifer characteristics
and because the efficacy of the process is more difficult to verify.
Bioremediation techniques are destruction techniques directed toward stimulatin g

Biological processes are typically easily implemented at low cost. Contaminants are
destroyed and little to no residual treatment is required. Some compounds, however,
may be broken down into more toxic by-products during the bioremediation process
(e.g., TCE to vinyl chloride). In in situ applications, these by-products may be
mobilized in groundwater if no control techniques are used. Typically, to address
this issue, bioremediation will be performed above a low permeability soil layer and
with groundwater monitoring wells downgradient of the remediation area. This type
of treatment scheme requires aquifer and contaminant characterization and may still
require extracted groundwater treatment.
Although not all organic compounds are amenable to biodegradation, bioremediation

techniques have been successfully used to remediate groundwater contaminated by
petroleum hydrocarbons, solvents, pesticides, wood preservatives, and other organic
chemicals. Bioremediation has no expected effect on inorganic contaminants.

specific contaminants present; temperature; oxygen supply; nutrient supply; pH; the
availability of the contaminant to the microorganism (clay soils can adsorb
contaminants making them unavailable to the microorganisms); the concentration of
the contaminants (high concentrations may be toxic to the microorganism); the
presence of substances toxic to the microorganism, e.g., mercury; or inhibitors to
the metabolism of the contaminant. These parameters are discussed in the following
paragraphs.
To ensure that oxygen is supplied at a rate sufficient to maintain aerobic conditions,

forced air, liquid oxygen, or hydrogen peroxide injection can be used. The use of
hydrogen peroxide is limited because at high concentrations (above 100 ppm, 1,000
ppm with proper acclimation), it is toxic to microorganisms. Also, hydrogen
peroxide tends to decompose into water and oxygen rapidly in the presence of some
constituents, thus reducing its effectiveness.

MK01\RPT:02281012.009 \compgde.3a2 10/31/00
3-58
Phosphates are suspected to cause soil plugging as a result of their reaction with
minerals, such as iron and calcium, to form stable precipitates that fill the pores in
the soil and aquifer.

Temperature affects microbial activity in the environment. The biodegradation rate

will slow with decreasing temperature; thus, in northern climates bioremediation
may be ineffective during part of the year unless it is carried out in a climate-
controlled facility. The microorganisms remain viable at temperatures below
freezing and will resume activity when the temperature rises.
Provisions for heating the bioremediatio n site, such as use of warm air injection,
may speed up the remediation process. Too high a temperature, however, can be
detrimental to some microorganisms, essentially sterilizing the aquifer.
Temperature also affects nonbiological losses of contaminan ts mainly through the

evaporation of contaminants at high temperatures. The solubility of contaminants
more soluble at low temperatures than at high temperatures. Additionally, oxygen
solubility decreases with increasing temperature.
unusually severe environmental conditions . Sometimes microorganisms from the
remediation process because the contaminants change in abundance as the

MK01\RPT:02281012.009 \compgde.3a2 10/31/00
3-59
Treatability or feasibility studies may be performed to determine whether

bioremediation would be effective in a given situation. The extent of the study can
vary depending on the nature of the contaminants and the characteristics of the site.
For sites contaminated with common petroleum hydrocarbons (e.g., gasoline and/or
other readily degradable compounds), it is usually sufficient to examine
representative samples for the presence and level of an indigenous population of
microbes, nutrient level s, presence of microbial toxicants, and aquifer
characteristics.
Available in situ biological treatment technologies include co -metabolic processes,

nitrate enhancement, and oxygen enhancement with either air sparging or hydrogen
peroxide (H2O2). These technologies are discussed in Section 4 (Treatment
Technology Profiles 4.30 through 4.33). Completed in situ biological treatment
projects for groundwater, surface water, and leachate are shown in Table 3-11.
Implementation of biological treatment in v adose zone soils differs from that of soils
below the water table largely in the mechanism of adding required supplemental
materials, such as oxygen and nutrients. For saturated soils, nutrients may be added
with and carried by reinjected groundwater. Oxygen can be provided by sparging or
by adding chemical oxygen sources such as hydrogen peroxide. Surface irrigation
may be used for vadose zone soils. Bioventing oxygenates vadose zone soils by
drawing air through soils using a network of vertical wells.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009 \compgde.3a2 10/31/00
3-60
TABLE 3-11
COMPLETED PROJECTS: IN SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FOR GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER, AND LEA
Naval Communication Bioremediation Soil, TPH (No. 2 diesel Microorganisms Runoff water None
Station, Scotland groundwater fuel) function best between collected in a
In situ soil, in situ 20 ?C and 35 ?C. trench
2/85 to 10/85 groundwater Soil quantity
(U.S. Navy) approximately
2
800 m in area,
Deh Bin Chan depth unknown
(805) 982-4191
DOE Demo Aerobic Groundwater TCE, PCE @ 1,000 Aquifers must be Methanotrophic <1 lb/day produc
Savannah River Site, SC Biodegradation ppb; 90% removal homogenous fluidized bed or
efficiency trickle filter
Nate Ellis bioreactor
(803) 952-4846
Brian Loony
(803) 952-5181
EPA Demo Augmented Soil & water Hydrocarbons In situ Insertion of Only degradation
Williams AFB, AZ subsurface (halogenated and microaerophilic products are CO
bioremediation nonhalogenated) bacteria and H2O
Completed in 1992 nutrients. Hardy
bacteria can treat
Kim Lisa Kreiton contaminants over
(513) 569-7328 a wide
David Mann temperature
(219) 868-5823 range.
DOE Savannah River Biodegradation Soil & TCE, PCE declined to In situ Injection of 1-4% None
Site, SC groundwater <2 ppb methane/air into
aquifer
Terry C. Hazen
(803) 725-5178
DOE Demo Biological Groundwater Nitrate reduced by In situ Provides ultimate No spent activate
Hanford Site, WA treatment 99% from 400 ppm. destruction of carbon need be
CCl4 reduced by 93% contaminant disposed
Thomas M. Brouns from 200 ppb
(509) 376-7855
Rodney S. Skeen
(509) 376-6371
Air Force & DOE Demo In situ & above- Groundwater 80% destruction of In situ or in a Bioreactor design TCE destroyed
Tinker AFB, OK ground biological TCE bioreactor uses methane
treatment of degrading bacteria
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a2
3-61
TABLE 3-11
COMPLETED PROJECTS: IN SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FOR GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATE
(CONTINUED)

1989 trichloroethylene to co-metabolize
TCE
Alison Thomas
(904) 283-6028
Air Force Demo In situ anaerobic Groundwater Jet fuel (toluene, In situ; nitrate is added Benzene is
Eglin, AFB, FL biodegradation ethylbenzene, xylene) to serve as electron recalcitrant unde
acceptor strict anaerobic
1/94-10/94 conditions
Alison Thomas
(904) 283-6028
Air Force Demo In situ Soil & Hydrocarbons - fuels, In situ Nutrients
Kelly AFB, TX & Eglin biodegradation groundwater fuel oils, & introduced into
AFB, FL nonhalogenated aquifer through
solvents irrigation wells-
Catherine M. Vogel some precipitation
(904) 283-6036 problems
occurred
DOI Demo In situ Groundwater 82% removal of In situ - Vapor stream Venting TCE is anaerobic
Picatinny Arsenal, NJ biodegradation vapor-phase TCE is amended with unsaturated soil or broken down into
after 8 days oxygen and methane, sparging DCE then VC and
Thomas E. Imbrigiotta propane, or natural contaminated well finally to ethylene
(609) 771-3900 gas near source which will breakd
and volatilize
DOI Demo In situ enhanced Groundwater Jet fuel In situ Uncontaminated Groundwater
Defense Fuel Supply bioremediation groundwater is extracted and
Point, SC amended with discharged to
nutrients and treatment facility
Late summer 1993 pumped into a
series of
Dr. Don A. Vroblesky infiltration galleries
(803) 750-6115
DOE Tech Demo In situ vapor Soil & Gasoline AIRFLOW - an MODFLOW to
(USGS) Galloway extraction and groundwater adaption of the USGS perform airflow
Township, NJ bioventing design groundwater flow simulations
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a2
3-62
TABLE 3-11
COMPLETED PROJECTS: IN SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FOR GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATE
(CONTINUED)

bioventing design simulator simulations
1988
Herbert T. Buxton
(609) 771-3900

MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a2
3-63
? 3.9 IN SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR GROUNDWATER,

SURFACE WATER, AND LEACHATE
The main advantage of in situ treatments is that they allow groundwater to be
treated without being brought to the surface, resulting in significant cost savings. In
situ processes, however, generally require longer time periods, and there is less
certainty about the uniformity of treatment because of the variability in aquifer
characteristics and because the efficacy of the process is more difficult to verify.

contamination. Passive treatment walls separate and destroy the contaminant from
in situ groundwater. Air sparging, directional wells, dual phase extraction, free
product recovery, hot water or steam flushing/stripping, and vacuum vapor
extraction are separation techniques. Slurry walls can be used to contain
contaminated areas so that aquifer groundwater will flow around them without
becoming contaminated. Hydrofracturing is an enhancement technique.
Available in situ physical/chemical treatment technologies include air sparging,

directional wells, dual phase extraction, free product recovery, hot water or steam
flushing/stripping, hydrofracturing, passive treatment walls, slurry walls, and
vacuum vapor extraction. These treatment technologies are discussed in Section 4
(Treatment Technology Profiles 4.34 through 4.42). Completed in situ
physical/chemical treatment projects for groundwater, surface water, and leachate
are shown in Table 3-12.

MK01\RPT:02281012.009 \compgde.3a2 10/31/00
3-64
TABLE 3-12
COMPLETED PROJECTS: IN SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER,
Navy Demo Groundwater vapor Groundwater VOCs In situ - air permitting Injection & Waste hydrocarb
Seal Beach Navy recovery system extraction wells to internal
Weapons Station, CA are placed inside combustion engin
and outside of
1991 contamination
area
Vern Novstrup
(805) 982-2636
Rebecca Coleman-
Roush
(805) 644-5892
DOE Demo In situ air stripping Soil & TCE & PCE Initial In situ (horizontal Air injection below Off-gas stream
Savannah River Site, SC with horizontal groundwater concentrations: 5,000 wells) aquifer - air
wells ppm; stabilized to extraction above.
7/90-12/90 200-300 ppm Extraction average 110
lb of VOCs/day
Mike O'Rear
(803) 725-5541
DOE Demo Air Sparging Groundwater VOCs In situ - In well air Surfactants or Requires air
Hanford Reservation, stripping catalysts added if treatment
WA needed
Steve Stein
(206) 528-3340
EPA Demo FORAGER® Waters Heavy metals 1 bed volume/minute Open-celled Regeneration or
National Lead Industry, sponge 90% removal control pH, temp, total cellulose sponge incineration of th
NJ ionic content metals-saturated
Sponge can scavenge sponge
10/93 metals at ppm or ppb
in industrial
Carolyn Esposito discharges
(908) 906-6895

MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a2
3-65
? 3.10 EX SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FOR GROUNDWATER, SURFACE

WATER, AND LEACHATE
ability to monitor and continuously mix the groundwater. However, ex situ
treatment requires pumping of groundwater, leading to increased costs and
engineering for equipment, possible permitting, and material handling.
Bioremediation techniques are destruction techniques directed toward stimulating

Biological processes are typically easily implemented at low cost. Contaminants are
destroyed and little to no residual treatment is required; however, some compounds
may be broken down into more toxic by-products during the bioremediation process
(e.g., TCE to vinyl chloride). An advantage over the in situ applications is that in ex
situ applications, these by-products are contained in the treatment unit until
nonhazardous end-products are produced.
Although not all organic compounds are amenable to bioremediation, techniques

have been successfully used to remediate soils, sludges, and groundwater
contaminated by petroleum hydrocarbons, solvents, pesticides, wood preservatives,
and other organic chemicals. Bioremediatio n is not applicable for treatment of
inorganic contaminants.

specific contaminants present; temperature; oxygen supply; nutrient supply; pH; the
availability of the contaminant to the microorganism (clay soils can adsorb
contaminants making them unavailable to the microorganisms); the concentration of
the contaminants (high concentrations may be toxic to the microorganism); the
presence of substances toxic to the microorganism, e.g., mercury; or inhibitors to
the metabolism of the contaminant. These parameters are discussed briefly in the
following paragraphs.
Oxygen level in ex situ applications is easier to control than in in situ applications

and is typically maintained by mechanical mixing or air sparging.

MK01\RPT:02281012.009 \compgde.3a2 10/31/00
3-66

Temperature affects microbial activity in the treatment unit. The biodegradation

below freezing and will resume activity when the temperature rises. Too high a
soil.

volatilization of contaminants at high temperatures. The solubility of contaminants
more soluble at low temperatures than at high temperatures. Additionally, oxygen
solubility decreases with increasing temperature. Temperature is more easily
controlled ex situ than in situ.
unusually severe environmental conditions. Sometimes microorganisms from the
remediation process because the contaminants in abundance change as the


would be effective in a given situatio n. The extent of the study can vary depending
and moisture.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009 \compgde.3a2 10/31/00
3-67
An available ex situ biological treatment technology is the use of bioreactors. This

technology is discussed in Section 4 (Treatment Technology Profile 4.43).
Completed ex situ biological treatment projects for groundwater, surface water, and
leachate are shown in Table 3-13.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009 \compgde.3a2 10/31/00
3-68
TABLE 3-13
COMPLETED PROJECTS: EX SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FOR GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER, AND LE
DOI Demo BIO-FIX beads Water Metals - lead, Porous polymeric Excellent handling Adsorbed metals
Bureau of Mines cadmium, arsenic biomass beads with - low maintenance removed using d
affinity for metals mineral acids
Tom Jeffers
(801) 524-6164
EPA Demo MacGillis & Biological aqueous Groundwater PCP reduced to <1 In mix tank, pH is Mixing Discharged to
Gibbs Superfund Site, treatment system ppm. Lowest flow adjusted & inorganic POTW or reused
MN removed 99% of nutrients added site
contaminants
7/89 to 9/89
Mary Stinson
(908) 321-6683
Dennis Chilcote
(612) 942-8032
DOI Demo Biological arsenic Wastewaters Arsenic reduced from Addition of anaerobic Two stage reactor, Minimum volume
remediation 13 to <0.5 mg/L sulfate-reducing arsenic arsenic precipitat
Late Summer 1993 bacteria precipitation and sludge
column system
Paulette Altringer
Darren Belin
(801) 584-4152 or 4155
DOI Demo Biological cyanide Wastewaters Cyanide reduced from Flow rate up to 300 Bio-activated Chemical treatme
Bureau of Mines, NV detoxification 20 ppm to 2 ppm gpm water use to as a polishing ste
rinsed metal
6/92 to 10/92 Greater than 40-ppm waste heap
phosphate
Paulette Altringer
Richard H. Lien
(801) 584-4152 or 4106
DOI Demo Biological Process & Selenium reduced Uses on-site Wastewater and Selenium is
Bureau of Mines, UT reduction of wastewaters from 30 to 1.2 ppm in equipment (carbon nutrient pumped precipitated and
selenium 144 hours; 4.2 to 1.6 tanks, sand filters) to through bed. removed by flush
Summer 1993 ppm in 48 hours. reduce cost. Activated Commercial or cross-flow
Selenium in uranium carbon or sand serves fertilizers and/or filtration
Paulette Altringer wastewater reduced as growth surface for sugar containing
D. Jack Adams from 0.58 to 0.03 ppm bacteria. agricultural
(801) 584-4152 or 4148 in 48 hours. wastes provide
bacterial nutrient
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a2
3-69
TABLE 3-13
COMPLETED PROJECTS: EX SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FOR GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATE
(CONTINUED)

supplements
Navy Demo, Naval Bioremediation of Soil & 1 ppb to 4 ppm of Three 80-liter Native Effluent cleaned
Weapons Station aromatic groundwater BTEX bioreactors at microorganisms. drinking water
Seal Beach, CA hydrocarbons combined capacity of Site soil is placed standards for BT
72 liters/day in bioreactors and
Steve MacDonald contaminated
(310) 594-7273 groundwater is
Carmen Lebron (805) pumped through
982-1615 bioreactors
EPA Demo Immobilized cell Groundwater >99% removal Pretreatment - pH Aerobic/Anaerobic Contaminants to
St. Joseph, MI bioreactor (ICB) and industrial efficiencies of adjustment and fixed film CO2, water, and
biotreatment wastewater organics oil/water separation. bioreactor biomass. The
Ronald Lewis system Proprietary reactor effluent produced
(513) 569-7856 medium and design reinjected
Steve Lupton maximized biological
(708) 391-3224 degradation
Air Force & DOE Demo In situ & Groundwater 80% destruction of In situ or in a Uses methane- TCE degraded
Tinker AFB, OK aboveground TCE bioreactor degrading bacteria
biological treatment to co-metabolize
1989 of trichloroethylene TCE
Alison Thomas
(904) 283-6028

Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site Remediation Technologies (FRTR, 1993).
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a2
3-70
? 3.11 EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR GROUNDWATER,

ability to monitor and continuously mix the groundwater. Ex situ treatment,
however, requires pumping of groundwater, leading to increased costs and
engineering for equipment, possible permit ting, and material handling.

contamination. UV oxidation is a destruction technology, and all other technologies
included in this subsection are separation technologies.

Available ex situ physical/chemical treatment technologies include air sparging,

filtration, ion exchange, liquid phase carbon adsorption, precipitation, and UV
oxidation. These technologies are discussed in Section 4 (Technology Profiles 4.44
through 4.49). Completed ex situ physical/chemical treatment projects for
groundwater, surface water, and leachate are shown in Table 3-14.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a2 10/31/00
3-71
TABLE 3-14
COMPLETED PROJECTS: EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER
EPA Removal Action Dechlorination Liquid (5 Criteria: Batch operation Groundwater Built an on-site
Crown Plating, MO using the KPEG gallons) extraction vacuum for
process/EPA Dioxin: <1 ppb Retention time- 36 emissions contro
10/1/89 to 12/31/89 removal contractor hours (including time
(Removal) Input: of equipment Contaminated
breakdown) residual oil
Mark Roberts Silvex - 10,000 ppm incinerated off
(913) 236-3881 Temperature - 72 ?C
Dioxin equivalents-
24.18 ppb pH - 13
Output: Moisture content-

100%
Silvex - 32 ppb
Dioxin equivalents-
0.068 ppb
EPA Demo PO*WW*ER ? Groundwater & Volatile & non-volatile 0.25 gpm pilot-plant Evaporation & Concentrated
Lake Charles evaporation & wastewaters organic compounds, oxidation contaminant solu
Treatment Center, LA catalytic oxidation salts, metals, volatile disposed of or
inorganics treated further
Randy Parker
(513) 569-7271
DOE Demo Solar Detoxification Groundwater VOCs Exposed to sunlight & Pumping, solar Catalyst filtered o
Lawrence Livermore nontoxic catalyst detox, pH and water sent fo
National Laboratory, CA (TiO2) adjustment, secondary treatm
catalyst addition
1991
Jesse L. Yow, Jr.

(510) 422-3521
Army Demo Xanthate treatment Groundwater & Heavy metals Ion exchange with Precipitation, Concentrated me
USACE-WES, MS wastewater xanthated material sedimentation, sludge
and filtration
Mark Bricka
(601) 634-3700
EPA Demo Integrated vapor Soil & Initial concentration: Groundwater: Groundwater: Carbon should be
San Fernando Valley extraction & steam groundwater up to 2.2 ppm TCE 1,200 gpm Steam stripping regenerated ever
Groundwater Basin vacuum stripping up to 11 ppm PCE in tower hours
Superfund Site, CA Soil gas:
Removal: 300 ft/min Soil: SVE
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a2
3-72
TABLE 3-14
COMPLETED PROJECTS: EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WAT
(CONTINUED)

1990 up to 99.9% VOCs
Norma Lewis
(513) 569-7665
EPA Demo Soil Soil, sludge, & Organics - Soil washing Soil particles Carbon filter for o
Coleman-Evans Site, FL washing/catalytic groundwater 1-20,000 ppm enhanced by larger than 1 inch gas
ozone oxidation ultrasound followed by are crushed
Norma Lewis oxidation
(513) 569-7665
Navy Demo Advanced Groundwater Ordnance - treated to Maintain pH UV oxidation, Possible toxic
Bangor SUBASE, WA Oxidation Process 2.9 ppb TNT and 0.8 H2O2, and O3 to byproducts
ppb RDX generate hydroxyl
Spring 1993 radicals
Carmen LeBron
(805) 982-1616
Navy Demo Advanced Groundwater Organics - TOC 50- Maintain pH UV oxidation, Contaminant
U.S. Navy Site, NJ Oxidation Process 100 ppm H2O2, and O3 to destruction
generate hydroxyl
1991 radicals
Andy Law
(805) 982-1650
Army Demo Catalytic Groundwater Reduction: Ex situ Ozone injection Air stream - treate
Fort Dix, NJ Decontamination 0% TOC and stripping in catalytic unit a
up to 90% VOC recycled
Steve Maloney
(217) 373-6740
Air Force & EPA Demo CAV-OX® Process Groundwater & Organics - 96-100% H2O2 and metal Hydrodynamic Contaminant
Edwards AFB, CA wastewater reduction catalysts added if cavitation and UV destruction
needed oxidation
3/93
Richard Eilers
(513) 569-7809
EPA & DOE Demo Filtration Waters "Polishing" filtration Specific control - water Sorption, chemical Concentrated wa
Rocky Flats Facility, CO process for heavy chemistry, water flux, complexing, and sludge
metals and non-tritium and bed volume hydroxide
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a2
3-73
TABLE 3-14
COMPLETED PROJECTS: EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATM ENT FOR GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WA
(CONTINUED)

7/90 radio-nuclides precipitation
(NORM, LLRW, TRU)
Annette Gatchett
(513) 569-7697
EPA Demo Membrane Groundwater Removal: Hyperfiltration unit Clean H20 to POT
American Creosote Separation 90% PAH concen-trated
Works, FL 80% creosote contaminants to
25-30% smaller holding tanks
1991 phenolics
Kim Lisa Kreiton

(513) 569-7328
EPA Demo Precipitation/Filtrati Groundwater Low-moderate levels Complexing, URAL complexing Treated water to
Palangana Uranium Mine on of NORM (uranium, adsorption, and agent holding pond
Site, TX radium-226, thorium- absorption
230)
7/93
Annette Gatchett
(513) 569-7697
EPA Demo Ultraviolet radiation Groundwater Halogenated UV, H2O2, and O3 Tank with air Offgas to ozone
San Jose, CA & oxidation hydrocarbons, VOCs, destruction compressor, O3 destruction
pesticides, PCBs - generator, and
3/89 99% TCE, 58% H2O2 feed
1,1-DCA, 85%
Norma Lewis 1,1,1-TCA removal
(513) 569-7665
DOE Demo Ultraviolet Groundwater TCE 30% downtime for Flow rate has
Kansas City radiation, hydrogen maintenance and averaged 15% of
Plant, MO peroxide, and repair design rate
ozone
Sidney B. Garland II
(615) 579-8581
DOI Demo Birmingham, Solid/liquid Wastewater Solids and fine Feed flow rate in field Pipe delivery The "clean" wate
AL separation particulate matter in test unit was 50-175 system used as can be discharge
Manassas, VA mining wastes gpm. Freed material is mixing system to Flocculated mate
usually a degradable minimize quantity becomes solid wa
1992 polyacrylamide of feed used. for a landfill
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde .3a2
3-74
TABLE 3-14
COMPLETED PROJECTS: EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WAT
(CONTINUED)

Waste should be
Ronald H. Church in slurry form
(205) 759-9446
DOI Demo Solid/liquid Wastewater Suspended Waste pumped Polymer used for NTU values of th
Bureau of Mines and separation particulates from through a 4-inch line to flocculation is discharge water
USAEC (Cooperative dredging wastes 1,000-gallon fiberglass pumped through a ranged from 12 to
effort) mixing tank. 6-inch- 1-inch line to the 17, with the
Buffalo, NY by-2-inch static mixer. mixing tank. underflow discha
containing about
Ronald H. Church 31% solids
(205) 759-9446
DOI Demo Treatment of Slags, dusts, Copper byproducts - Acid in refinery waste Ex situ Vitrification of
Salt Lake City Research copper industry sludges, liquids arsenic, heavy metals is used to solubilize arsenic sulfide
Center waste metals in flue dust, leaves a dense, n
with subsequent metal reactive, glass
K.S. Gritton recovery material
(801) 584-4170
EPA SITE Demo Solidification/Stabili Groundwater, Organics and Silicate compounds Pretreatment PCP leachate co
Selma Pressure Treating zation with silicate soil, sludge inorganics separation of centrations reduc
Selma, CA compounds coarse and fine up to 97%. As, C
materials Cu immobilized
11/90
Edward Bates
(513) 569-7774
Sources: Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual StatusReport (EPA, 1993).

MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a2
3-75
? 3.12 OTHER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR GROUNDWATER,

Natural attenuation for groundwater is discussed in Section 4 (Treatment
Technology Profile 4.50). Completed projects for other treatment technologies for
groundwater, surface water, and leachate are shown in Table 3-15.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009 \compgde.3a2 10/31/00
3-76
TABLE 3-15
COMPLETED PROJECTS: OTHER TREATMENTS FOR GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER, AND LEACHATE
EPA Demo Electrochemical Groundwater Hexavalent chromium In situ requires excess Electrochemical Clean water is
Kerr-McGee reduction & and other heavy ferrous ions - maintain reactions generate reinjected into
Chemical Corp., WI immobilization metals pH ions for removal of ground
hexavalent
1993 chromium
Douglas Grosse
(513) 569-7844
EPA Demo Membrane Liquids & Solid particles in liquid Filter press Tyvek (T-980) Filter cake 40
Palmerton Zinc microfiltration wastes - removal averages 45 psi spun-bound olefin solids
Superfund Site, PA 99.95% Zn and TSS filter
1990
John Martin
(513) 569-7758
EPA Demo Rochem disc tube Aqueous Organics 1-2 gpm over 2-3 Membrane Concentrated
Casmalia, CA module system solutions weeks separation contaminant slud
(reverse osmosis),
1992 ultrafiltration
Douglas Grosse
(513) 569-7844
EPA Demo Thermal gas phase Soil, sludge, PCBs, PAHs, 850 ?C or higher - 25 Heated hydrogen
Hamilton Harbor, Canada reduction liquids, & gases chlorophenols, tons/day reduction
pesticides
1992
Gordon Evans
(513) 569-7684
EPA Demo Wetlands-based Influent waters Metals Principal components Natural processes
Burleigh Tunnel, CO treatment - soils, microbial - filtration, ion
fauna, algae, and exchange,
1991 vascular plants adsorption,
absorption, and
Edward Bates precipitation
(513) 569-7774
EPA Demo Circulating bed Soil, sludge, & Halogenated and 16-inch diameter CBC, Highly turbulent DRE value of
Ogden's Research combustor (CBC) liquids nonhalogenated 1,450-1,600 ?F, waste combustion zone 99.99% for princi
Facility organic compounds, feed <1 inch organics. Treate
PCBs ash disposal
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a2
3-77
TABLE 3-15
COMPLETED PROJECTS: OTHER TREATMENTS FOR GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER, AND LEACHATE (CO

San Diego, CA PCBs ash disposal
Douglas Grosse
(513) 569-7844
EPA SITE Demo Circulating bed Soil, sludge, Halogenated and Combustion through Mixing wastes. Treated ash disp
Ogden Research Facility, combustor liquids, solids, nonhalogenated hot cyclone (1,450- Limestone added
San Diego, CA & slurry organic compounds, 1,600 ?F) to neutralize acid
PCBs, dioxin gases
3/89
Douglas Grosse
(513) 569-7844
DOE Integrated Demo, Organics in soil Soils, Volatile organics such Integrated demo Directional well Offgas treatment
DOE and groundwater at groundwater at as TCE and PCE includes many drilling precedes also being
Savannah River Site, nonarid sites nonarid sites, technologies- no the in situ air demonstrated
Aiken, GA emphasizing in specific parameters stripping
situ remediation given
Terry Walton
(803) 725-5218
DOE Integrated Demo, USTs, Groundwater, Tank waste UST-ID is pursuing Parameters vary Parameters vary
4 DOE sites: (1) emphasizing the soil constituents ranging technologies in two among among technolog
Hanford single-shell storage from Na-nitrates to general areas: technologies
(2) Fernald, ID tanks located at the transuranics, in 3 characterization/retriev
(3) Oak Ridge Hanford site forms: supernatant al and separations/low-
(4) Savannah River (liquid), sludges, and Level waste
saltcake (which can
2/91 be as hard as
cement)
Roger Gilchrist
(509) 376-5310
DOI Demo Well Point Groundwater Lead, iron The Bureau of Mines Well point system Monitoring of
Bureau of Mines Containment demonstration in conjunction with groundwater requ
Tuscaloosa Research included a 235-well a french drain to after well point
Center, AL point system and a contain pumping begins
monitoring well impoundment
C.W. Smith network leakage
(205) 759-9460
Sources: Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report (EPA, 1993).
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a2
3-78
TABLE 3-15
COMPLETED PROJECTS: OTHER TREATMENTS FOR GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER, AND LEACHATE (CO
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a2
3-79
? 3.13 AIR EMISSIONS/OFF-GAS TREATMENT

A number of technologies have been widely applied for removal of V OCs from off-
gas streams; however, the application of these technologies to off-gases from site
remediation may be quite limited. Biofiltration has been widely applied for VOC
destruction in Europe and Japan, but it has only recently been used in the United
States. Catalytic and thermal oxidation are widely used for the destruction of gas-
phase VOCs in U.S. industry, yet have only limited applications to site remediation
of off-gases. Vapor phase carbon adsorption has been the VOC removal technology
most commonly used for site remediation off -gases. Carbon adsorption, however,
does not destroy the VOCs so that additional destruction or disposal is required.
The following factors may affect the effectiveness and cost of the various
technologies: VOC con centration, VOC species, presence of halogenated VOCs,
presence of catalyst poisons, particulate loading, moisture content, gas flow rate,
and ambient temperature.
Available air emissions/off-gas treatment technologies include biofiltration, high

energy corona, membrane separation, oxidation, and vapor phase carbon adsorption.
These processes are discussed in Section 4 (Treatment Technology Profiles 4.51
through 4.55). Completed air emissions/off -gas treatment projects are shown in
Table 3-16.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009 \compgde.3a2 10/31/00
3-80
TABLE 3-16
COMPLETED PROJECTS: AIR EMISSIONS/OFF -GAS TREATMENT
EPA Demo Chemtact? Gaseous Organic and Once through system Gas scrubber Low volumes of
gaseous waste wastestreams inorganics with droplet size less liquid condensate
1989 treatment 85-100% removal of than 10 microns and a
hydrocarbons longer retention time
Ronald Lewis 94% removal of
(513) 569-7856 phenol and
formaldehyde
EPA Demo Thermal gas phase Soil, sludge, Organics and 850 ?C or higher Hydrogen reduces Gas stream scrub
Hamilton Harbor, Canada reduction liquids, & gases chlorinated organics organics to
smaller lighter
1992 hydrocarbons.
Gordon Evans
(513) 569-7684
DOE Integrated Demo VOC compounds Arid zones or VOCs (TCE, PCE) Integrated demo Integrated demo Integrated demo
DOE Hanford at arid sites environments includes many includes many includes many
Reservation with large technologies- no technologies- no technologies
vadose zones specific parameters specific specific paramete
Steve Stein given parameters given given
(206) 528-3340

Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site Remediation Technologies (FRTR, 1993).
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a2
3-81
4.1 BIODEGRADATION (IN SITU)
Description: Biodegradation is a process in which indigenous or inoculated micro organisms (i.e., fungi,
microbes) degrade (metabolize) organic contaminants found in soil and/or groundwater. In the p
oxygen (aerobic conditions), microorganisms will ultimately convert many organic contaminants
water, and microbial cell mass. In the absence of oxygen (anaerobic conditions), the contaminan
metabolized to methane, limited amount of carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of hydrogen gas. S
nants may be degraded to intermediate products that may be less, equally, or more h azardo
contaminant. For example, TCE anaerobically biodegrades to the persistent and more toxic vinyl
such problems, most biodegradation projects are conducted in situ.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.41
4-82
4-1 TYPICAL IN SITU BIODEGRADATION SYSTEM
The in situ bioremediation of soil typically involves the percolation or injection of groundwater
water mixed with nutrients and saturated with dissolved oxygen. Sometimes acclimat
(bioaugmentation) and/or another oxygen source such as hydrogen peroxide are also added. An in
spray irrigation is typically used for shallow contaminated soils, and injection wells are used for
soils.
Applicability: Bioremediation techniques have been successfully used to remediate soils, sludges, and groundwater
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.41
4-83
IN SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
petroleum hydrocarbons, solvents, pesticides, wood preservatives, and other organic chemicals. Pilot
effectiveness of microbial degradation of nitrotoluenes in soils contaminated with explosives. Biodegr
effective for remediating low level residual contamination in conjunction with source removal.
While bioremediation cannot degrade inor gaic contaminants, bioremediation can be used to change
inorganics and cause adsorption, uptake, accumulation, and concentration of inorganics in micro
These techniques, while still largely experimental, show consid erable promise of stabilizing or
from soil.
Limitations: Factors that may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process include:
· Cleanup goals may not be attained if the soil matrix prohibits contaminant-microorganism
· The circulation of water-based solutions through the soil may increase contaminant mob
treatment of underlying groundwater.
· Preferential colonization by microbes may occur causing clogging of nutrient and water injec
· Preferential flow paths may severely decrease contact between injected fluids and contamin
contaminated zones. The system should not be used for clay, highly layered, or hetero
environments because of oxygen (or other electron acceptor) transfer limitations.
· High concentrations of heavy metals, highly chlorinated organics, long chain hydrocarbon
are likely to be toxic to microorganisms.
· Bioremediation slows at low temperat ures.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.1 (Data Requirements
and Sludge). Important contaminant characteristics that need to be identified in a bio
investigation are their potential to leach (e.g., water solubility and soil sorption coefficient); their
(e.g., tendency toward nonbiological reactions, such as hydrolysis, oxidation, and polymer
importantly, their biodegradability.
Soil characteristics that need to be determined include the depth and areal extent of contamination;
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.41
4-84
the contaminants; soil type and properties (e.g., organic content, texture, pH, permeability, wat
moisture content, and nutrient level); the competition for oxygen (i.e., redox potential); the pres
substances that are toxic to microorganisms; and the ability of microorganisms in the soil to degrad
Treatability or feasibility tests are performed to determine whether bioremediation is feasible in a

the remediation time frame and parameters. Field testing can be performed to determine the rad
well spacing.
Performance
Data: The main advantage of the in situ process is that it allows soil to be treated with out being excav
resulting in less disturbance of site activities and significant cost savings over methods invol
transportation. Also, both contaminated ground water and soil can be treated simultaneously, prov
advantages. In situ processes generally require longer time periods, however, and there is less
uniformity of treatment because of the inher ent variability in soil and aquifer characterist
monitoring progress.
Remediation times are often years, depending mainly on the degrada tion rates of specific
characteristics, and climate. Less than 1 year may be required to clean up some contaminants, b
weight compounds take longer to degrade.
There is a risk of increasing contaminant mobility and leaching of contaminants into the groun
often do not accept the addition of nitrates or non -native microorganisms to contaminated soils. In
has been selected for remedial and emergency response actions at only a few Superfund sites. G
hydrocarbons can be readily bioremediated, at relat ively low cost, by stimulating indigenous mic
without nutrients.
Cost: Typical costs for in situ bioremediation range from $30 to $100 per cubic meter ($20 to $80 per
Variables affecting the cost are the nature and depth of the contaminants, use of bio augmen
peroxide addition, and groundwater pumping rates.
References: Aggarwal, P.K., J.L. Means, R.E. Hinchee, G.L. Headington, and A.R. Gavaskar, July 1990.
Chemicals for In-Situ Biodegradation of Fuel Hydrocarbons, Air Force Engineering & Services C
FL.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.41
4-85
Arthur, M.F., T.C. Zwick, G.K. O'Brien, and R.E. Hoeppel, 1988. "Laboratory Studies To
Mediated In-Situ Soil Remediation," in 1988 DOE Model Conference Proceedings, Vol. 3, NTI
A14/MF A01, as cited in Energy Research Abstracts, EDB-89:134046, TIC Accession No. DE890
EPA, 1993. Augmented In-Situ Subsurface Bioremediation Process, Bio-Rem, Inc., EPA R
Bulletin, EPA/540/MR-93/527.
EPA, 1994. Ex-Situ Anaerobic Bioremediation System, Dinoseb, J.R. Simplot Company, EPA R
Bulletin; EPA/540/MR-94/508.
Wetzel, R.S., C.M. Durst, D.H. Davidson, and D.J. Sarno, July 1987. In-Situ Biological Treatm
Force Base, Volume II: Field Test Results and Cost Model, AD-A187 486, Air Force Engineerin
Tyndall AFB, FL.
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
Site Name Contact Summary Levels Attained Costs
Naval Communi- Deh Bin Chan, Ph.D. Oil degrading bacteria 1,000 ppm 80% removal $30/ton of
cation Station, NFESC applied by injection wells COD in (60% in situ, soil
Thurso, Scotland Code 411 and surface sprayers to leaching water 20% bio-
Port Hueneme, CA 93043 hard to reach areas from beach reactor)
(805) 982-4191, where indigenous before entering
DSN 551-4191 bacteria had been bioreactor
destroyed.
DOE, Savannah Terry Hazen Plants (lobolly pine) are Not currently <$50,000/acr
River, SC Westinghouse Savannah River cultivated to encourage funded e
Company root-associated NA
P.O. Box 616 (rhizosphere)
Building 773-42A microorganisms to
Aiken, SC 29802 degrade contaminants.
(803) 725-6413 TCE and PCE targeted.
3
FAA Technical Carla Struble Pilot scale completed 33,000 yd New Jersey Expected full
Center-Area D (212) 264-4595 August 1992. Nutrient Jet fuel soil action scale
Atlantic County, NJ addition and groundwater NAPLs levels $286K CAP
reinjection in saturated and $200K
soil (sand) O&M
Eglin AFB, FL Alison Thomas Using nitrate as an 4,000 ppb
(904) 283-6303 alternative electron BTEX
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.41
4-86
acceptor to enhance NA NA
anaerobic biodegradation
of a fuel-contaminated
aquifer.
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact Government Agency Phone Location
Ron Hoeppel NFESC (805) 982-1655 Code 411
DSN 551-1655 Port Hueneme, CA 93043
John Matthews EPA-RSKERL (405) 436-8600 P.O. Box 1198
Ada, OK 74821
Technology USAEC (410) 671-2054 SFIM-AEC-ETD
Demonstration and Fax: APG, MD 21010-5401
Transfer Branch (410) 612-6836
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.41
4-87
4.2 BIOVENTING
Description: Bioventing is a promising new technology that stimulates the natural in situ biodegradation of petr
in soil by providing oxygen to existing soil microorganisms. In contrast to soil vapor vacuum ex
uses low air flow rates to provide only enough oxygen to sustain microbial activity. Oxygen
supplied through direct air injection into residual contamination in soil, as illustrated below. In ad
of adsorbed fuel residuals, volatile compounds are biodegraded as vapors move slowly through bio
4-2 TYPICAL BIOVENTING SYSTEM
The AFCEE bioventing initiative is demonstrating that this technology is effective under widely var
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.42
4-5
Initial testing has been completed at 117 sites, with more than 90 pilot systems now ope
installations. On smaller sites, many of these single-well pilot systems are providing full-scale rem
Regulatory acceptance of this technology has been obtained in 30 states and in all 10 EPA regions
technology in the pri vate sector is growing rapidly following USAF leadership.
Applicability: Bioventing techniques have been successfully used to remediate soils contaminated by petrol
nonchlorinated solvents, some pesticides, wood preservatives, and other o rganic chemicals.
While bioremediation cannot degrade inorganic contaminants, bioremediation can be used to chan
of inorganics and cause adsorption, uptake, accumulation, and concentration of inorga
macroorganisms. These techniques, while still largely experimental, show considerable prom
removing inorganics from soil.
· Pilot-scale, in situ tests should be conducted to determine soil gas permeability.
· The water table within several feet of the surface, saturated soil lenses, or low perm
bioventing performance.
· Vapors can build up in basements within the radius of influence of air injection wells.
alleviated by extracting air near the structure of concern.
· Low soil moisture content may limit biodegradation and the effectiveness of bioventing, wh
the soils.
· Monitoring o f off-gases at the soil surface may be required.
· Aerobic biodegradation of many chlorinated compounds may not be effective unless ther
present, or an anaerobic cycle.
· Low temperatures slow remediation.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.42
4-6
and Sludge). Two basic criteria must be satisfied for successful bioventing. First, air must be abl
soil in sufficient quantities to maintain aerobic conditions; second, natural hydrocarbon -degra
must be present in concentrations large enough to obtain reasonable biodegradation rates. Initial te
determine both air permeability of soil and in situ respiration rates.
Soil grain size and soil moisture significantly influence soil gas permeability. Perhaps the grea
permeability is excessive soil moisture. A combination of high water tables, high moisture, and f
made bioventing infeasible at some AFCEE test locations.
Several soil characteristics that are known to impact microbial activity are pH, moisture, and basi
phosphorus, and temperature. Soil pH measurements show the o ptional pH range to be 6 to 8 fo
however, microbial respiration has been observed at all sites, even in soils that fall outside
Optimum soil moisture is very soil-specific because too much moisture can reduce the a ir permea
decrease its oxygen transfer capability. Too little moisture will inhibit microbial activity. Severa
test sites have sustained biodegradation rates with moisture levels as low as 2 to 5% by weight.
Biological activity has been measured at Eielson AFB, Alaska, in soil temperatures as low as 0
more rapidly degrade contaminants during summer months, but some remediation occurs in soil te
0 ? C.
Performance
Data: Bioventing is becoming more common, and most of the hardware components are readily avail
receiving increased exposure to the remediation consulting community, particularly its use in c
vapor extraction (SVE). AFCEE is sponsoring bioventing demonstrations at 135 sites. As
technologies, the time required to remediate a site using bioventing is highly dependent upon t
chemical properties of the contaminated media.
Using an approach similar to the AFCEE Bioventing Initiative (138 sites at 48 military base
coordination with the regulatory community, plans to conduct a multiple site application of the bios
Bioslurping is an approach adapted from the vacuum dewatering industry. A bioslurper system
tube that extends into the LNAPL free product layer in the well. Product is drawn into the tube
tube toward the vacuum extraction pump. Product is drawn u p the tube in the form of a colu
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.42
4-7
vapor, and/or a film. Product can be drawn up the tube as a solid column, provided that the produc
fast enough and the depth below the ground surface does not exceed roughly 25 feet below
Otherwise, the product is "slurped" up the well through entrainment. Recovery of product
conventional methods because, as opposed to gravity alone, the vacuum provides a driving fo
proceeds along a horizontal flow path, which reduces product entrapment or "smearing" typical of
In addition, as vapor is extracted from the subsurface, oxygen, in the form of air, promotes aer
(a.k.a. bioventing) throughout the affected vadose zone and capillary fringe.
Cost: Based on AFCEE and commercial applications of this technology, costs for operating a bioventing
$10 to $70 per cubic meter ($10 to $50 per cubic yard). Factors that affect the cost o f bioventing
type and concentration, soil permeability, well spacing and number, pumping rate, and off
technology does not require expensive equipment and can be left unattended for long periods of ti
personnel are involved in the operation and maintenance of a bioventing system. Typically, p
monitoring is conducted.
References: AFCEE, 1994. Bioventing Performance and Cost Summary, Draft. Brooks AFB, TX.
Aggarwal, P.K., J.L. Means, R.E. Hinchee, G.L. Headington, and A.R. Gavaskar, July 1990.
Chemicals for In-Situ Biodegradation of Fuel Hydrocarbons, Air Force Engineering & Services C
FL.
DOE, 1993. Methanotrophic In Situ Bioremediation Using Methane/Air and Gaseous Nu

Horizontal Wells, Technology Information Profile, Rev. 2, DOE ProTech Database, TTP Referenc
Hinchee, R.E., S.K. Ong, and R. Hoeppel, 1991. "A Treatability Test for Bioventing, " in
Annual Meeting and Exhibition, Air and Waste Management Association, Vancouver, BC, 91
Hinchee, R.E., S.K. Ong, R.N. Miller, and D.C. Downey, 1992. Report to AFCEE, Brooks AFB,
Hinchee, R.E., 1993. "Bioventing of Petroleum Hydrocarbons," Handbook of Bioremediation

Boca Raton, FL, pp. 39-59.
Hoeppel, R.E., R.E. Hinchee, and M.F. Arthur, 1991. "Bioventing Soils Contaminated with Petrol
J. Ind. Microbiol., 8:141-146.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.42
4-8
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
Savannah River DOE Program Manager Disposal of solvents used Soil: 10 ppm <2 ppb Capital:
Kurt Gerdes to degrease nuclear fuel GW: 1 ppm $150K +
EM-551, Trevion II target elements. 200 man-
Washington, DC 20585 Contamination is mostly hours per
(301) 903-7289 TCE and PCE. week
3
Tyndall AFB, FL Armstrong Laboratory/EQW Pilot-scale field test for >1,000 mg <30 mg $15-$20/m
139 Barnes Drive volatile hydrocarbons in TPH/kg soil TPH/kg soil ($12-
3
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403 vadose zone. $15/yd )
(904) 283-6208
DSN: 523-6208
Eielson AFB, AK Armstrong Laboratory/EQW Pilot-scale field test Volatile Hydro- Expected 11/94 Average
Kathy Vogel comparison of enhanced carbons bioventing
139 Barnes Drive solar, active, and buried cost $10-
3
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403 heat tape warming $15/yd
(904) 283-6208 methods.
Hill AFB, UT AFCEE 25,000 gallons of JP-4 20,000 ppm 98% reduction Average
DSN: 240-4331 spill to a depth of 60 ft TPH bioventing
cost $10-
3
$15/yd
Points of Contact:
Greg Sayles EPA RREL (513) 569-7328 26 West. M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Lt. Col. Ross N. Miller or AFCEE/ERT (210) 536-4331 8001 Arnold Drive
Patrick E. Haas Fax: (210) 536-4330 Brooks AFB, TX 78235
Mark Zappi or Douglas USAE-WES (601) 636-2856 Attn: CEWES-EE-S
Gunnison Fax: (610)634-3833 3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Ronald Hoeppel NFESC (805) 982-1655 Code ESC 411
5600 Center Drive
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4328
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.42
4-9
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.42
4-10
4.3 WHITE ROT FUNGUS
Description: Because of its lignin-degrading or wood -rotting enzymes, white rot fungus has been reported to de
of organopollutants. Two different treatment configurations have been tested for white rot
bioreactor. An aerobic system using moisturized air on wood chips is used in a reactor for biodeg
was used in the bench-scale trial of the process. In the pilot -scale project, an adjustable shredder
chips for the open system. The open system is similar to composting, with wood chips on a line
surface that is covered. Temperature is not controlled in this type of system. The optimu
biodegradation with lignin-degrading fungus ranges from 30 to 38 ? C (86 to 100 ? F). The heat o
reaction will help to maintain the temperature of the process near the optimum.
4-3 TYPICAL WHITE ROT FUNGUS BIODEGRADATION PROCESS

Although white rot fungus degradation of TNT has been reported in laboratory -scale settings u
number of factors increase the difficulty of using this technology for full-scale remediation. T
competition from native bacterial populations, toxicity inhibition, chemical sorption, and the in
based cleanup levels. White rot works best in nitrogen -limited environments.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.43
4-11
In bench-scale studies of mixed fungal and bacterial systems, most of the reported degradation of
to native bacterial populations. High TNT or PCP concentrations in soil also can inhibit growth of
study suggested that one particular species of white rot was incapable of growing in soils contamin
more of TNT. In addition, some reports indicate that TNT losses reported in white rot fungus stud
to adsorption onto the fungus and soil amendments, such as corn cobs and straw, rather than a
TNT. Alleman (1991) tested a variety of white rot fungus for PCP sensitivity. Eighteen spe
sensitivity were inhibited by 10 mg of PCP per liter when grown on agar plates. Within 2 weeks,
grew in the inhibition zones. In liquid -phase toxicity experiments, all 18 species were killed by 5 m
Applicability: White rot fungus has the ability to degrade and mineralize a number of organopollutants includi
conventional explosives TNT, RDX, and HMX. In ad dition, white rot fungus has the potential to deg
2-4
other recalcitrant materials, such as DDT, PAH, PCB, and PCP .
Limitations: The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
· High TNT concentrations in the soil, sediment, or sludge.
· The degradation of contaminants not being sufficient to meet cleanup levels.
· Competition from native bacterial populations, toxicity inhibition, and chemical sorption.
and Sludge). Subsection 2.7.1 provides a general overview of explosives in soils, sediments, an
data required to evaluate the white rot process include:
· Explosives concentration of the contaminated soil, sludge, or sediment.
· Final explosive levels required after treatment.
· Other contaminants present.
· Characterization of soil properties.
Performance
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.43
4-12
4.3 W
Data: This technology has been known for approximately 20 years with very few, if any, commercial a
scale treatability study was conducted using white rot fungus at a former ordnance open burn/ope
Site D, Naval Submarine Base, Bangor, Washington. Initial TNT concentrations of 1,844 ppm we
ppm in 30 days and 1,087 ppm in 120 days. The overall degradation was 41%, and final TNT
above the proposed cleanup level of 30 ppm. Additional studies to evaluat e the effectiveness of
explosives-contaminated soil are being sponsored by USAEC.
White rot fungus is not native to soil, and some forms of bacteria may become predominant over
In addition, little is known of th e ability of the white rot to compete with other forms of fungi. Man
laboratory studies cited use sterile conditions, which allow the white rot fungus to grow without t
encountered in field sites.
Experiments indicate that white rot fungus is viable under specific environmental conditions.
conditions in actual site testing may optimize the ability of white rot fungus to remediate hazardou
timeframe and cost effectiveness of dupli cating these conditions have never been taken into accou
are widely believed to optimize the viability and potential of white rot fungus. First, secretion of
in nutrient-deficient conditions. The optimum concentrat ion of nitrogen is around 2 to 4 mM.
concentrations of oxygen results in ligninolytic action but not to the same degree as 100% ox
mineralization is two- to three -fold greater under 100% oxygen. A concentration of ox ygen bel
enzymatic action. Third, pH has been determined to be optimal around 4.5. Fourth, the optimal
between 40 and 45%.
Cost: The costs are estimated at $98 per cubic meter ($75 per cubic yard).
References: Alleman, B. 1991. Degradation of Pentachlorophenol by Selected Species of White Rot

University of Arizona.
Bumpus, J.A., and S.D. Aust, 1985. "Studies on the Biodegradation of Organopollutants by a W
Proceedings of the International Conference on New Frontiers for Hazardous Waste Managem
1985, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 404-410, EPA/600/9-85/025.
EPA, 1993. Fungal Treatment Technology, EPA RREL, Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/MR
Janshekar, H. and Fiechter A., 1988. "Cultivation of P. Chrysosporium and Production of L
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.43
4-13
Submerged Stirred Tank Reactors," Journal of Biotechnology, 8:97-112.
Lamar, Richard T. and Dietrich D.M., 1990. "In Situ Depletion of Pentachlorophenol from C
Phanerochaete Species," Applied Environmental Microbiology, 56, 3093.
Lamar, Richard T. and Richard J. Scholze, 4-6 February 1992. White-Rot Fungi Biodegrada
Ammunition Boxes, Presented at the Natio nal Research and Development Conference on the C
Materials, San Francisco, CA.
Lebron, C.A., June 1990. Ordnance Bioremediation - Initial Feasibility Report, NCEL.
Lebron, C.A., L.A. Karr, T. Fernando, and S.D. Aust, 1992. Biodegradation of 2,4,6-Trinitrot
Fungus, U.S. Patent Number 5,085,998.
Scholze, R.J., R.T. Lamar, J. Bolduc, and D. Dietrich, 1994. Feasibility of White Rot Fungi fo
PCP-Treated Ammunition Boxes, USACERL Technical Report.
Venkatadri, R., S. Tsai, N. Vukanic, and L.B. Hein, 1992. "Use of Biofilm Membrane Reactor f
Lignin Peroxidase and Treatment of Pentachlorophenol by Phanerochaete Chrysosporium,
Hazardous Materials, Vol. 9, pp. 231-243.
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
Letterkenny AD Richard Scholze Pilot-scale demonstration 425 ppm of 30% removal
Chambersburg, PA USACERL using PCP-treated PCB but 80% NA
P.O. Box 9005 ammunition boxes in less removal in lab
Champaign, IL 61826-9005 than ideal conditions.
(217) 373-3488
Brookhaven Wood Richard Lamar White rot fungi to treat PCP 700 ppm 89% PCP
Preserving, MA Forest Products Lab., USDA chlorinated VOCs and removal
(608) 231-9469 PAHs. Treatability Study 70% PAH NA
John Glasser in 1991. removal
EPA RREL Full demo in 1993.
(513) 569-7568
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.43
4-14
4.3 W
Points of Contact:
Explosives:
Carmen A. Lebron NFESC (805) 982-1616 ESC 411
Autovon 551-1616 Port Hueneme, CA 93043
Other Contaminants:
Richard Scholze USACE-CERL (217) 373-3488 P.O. Box 9005
(217) 352-6511 Champaign, IL 61826-9005
(800) USA-CERL
John Glasser EPA RREL (513) 569-7568 26 West M.L. King Drive
Fax: Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7676
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.43
4-15
4.4 PNEUMATIC FRACTURING
Description: Pneumatic fracturing (PF) is an enhancement technology designed to increase the efficienc
technologies in difficult soil conditions. PF injects pressurized air beneath the surface to dev
permeability and over-consolidated sediments. These new passageways increase the effectiven
processes and enhance extraction efficiencies by increasing contact between contaminants adsorbe
and the extraction medium.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.44
4-15
4-4 TYPICAL PNEUMATIC FRACTURING PROCESS

In the PF process, fracture wells are drilled in the contaminated vadose zone and left open (uncase
depth. A packer system is used to isolate small (0.6 -meter or 2-foot) intervals so that short bur
compressed air (less than 10,300 mmHg or 200 pounds per square inch) can be injected into the in
formation. The process is repeated for each interval. The fracturing extends and enlarges
introduces new fractures, primarily in the horizontal direction. When fracturing has been comple
then subjected to vapor extraction, either by applying a vacuum to all wells or by extracting from
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.44
4-16
4.4 PNEUM
other wells are capped or used for passive air inlet or forced air injection.
Applicability: PF is applicable to the complete range of contaminant groups with no particular target group. The
primarily to fracture silts, clays, shale, and bedrock.
· The technology should not be used in areas of high seismic activity.
· Fractures will close in non-clayey soils.
· Investigation of possible underground utilities, structures, or trapped free product is required
· The potential exists to open new pathways for the unwanted spread of contaminants (e.g.
phase liquids).
and Sludge). Soil characteristics that need to be determined include the depth and areal extent of
concentration of the contaminants, and soil type and properties (e.g., structure, organic content, te
water-holding capacity, and moisture content).
Performance
Data: The technology is currently available from only one vendor. PF was tested with hot gas injecti
EPA's SITE demonstration program in 1992. Results indicate that PF increased the effectiv
influence nearly threefold and increased the rate of mass removal up to 25 times over the ra
conventional extraction technologies. A Phase II demonstration is planned for 1994. The t
demonstrated in the field, including the one under EPA's SITE program. In addition, numer
theoretical studies have been published.
During summer 1993, a pilot demonstration of pneumatic fracturing was sponsored by DOE at Tin
remediation of the fine -grained silts, clays, and sedimentary rock that underlie the site. At one tes
fuel oil was being pumped from existing recovery wells, pneumatic fracturing increased the avera
rate by 15 times. Tests conducted in the unsaturated zone also showed enhanced air permea
fracturing, ranging from 5 to 30 times greater than prefracture values.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.44
4-17
Normal operation employs a two -person crew, making 15 to 25 fractures per day with a fract
meters (15 to 20 feet) to a depth of 15 to 30 meters (50 to 100 feet). For longer remediation pro
efforts may be required at 6- to 12-month intervals.
Cost: The approximate cost range for pneumatic fracturing is $9 to $13 per metric ton ($8 to $12 per ton
References: EPA, 1993. Accutech Pneumatic Fracturing Extraction and Hot Gas Injection, Phase I
includes Technology Evaluation, EPA/540/R-93/509; Technology Demonstration Summary, EP
Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/MR-93/509; and Applications Analysis, EPA/540/AR-93/50
EPA, 1993. "Pneumatic Fracturing Increases VOC Extractor Rate," Tech Trends, EPA
93/010.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.44
4-18
4.4 PNEUM
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
Hillsborough, NJ John Liskowitz PF and hot gas injection $308/kg
Accutech Remedial increased SVE flow rate by ($140/lb) TCE
Systems, Inc. more than 600%. NA NA removed
(908) 739-6444
Fax: (908) 739-0451
Marcus Hook, PA John Schuring or Peter Pilot-scale testing of PF and
Lederman bioremediation. Completion
Hazardous Substance due in July 1994.
Management Research NA NA NA
Center at New Jersey
Institute of Technology
138 Warren Street
Newark, NJ 07102
(201) 596-5849/2457
Points of Contact:
Uwe Frank EPA (908) 321-6626 EPA, Building 10, MS-104
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837
Clyde Frank DOE (202) 586-6382 DOE
Environmental Restoration/Waste
Management, EM-50
1000 Independence Ave.
Washington, DC 20585
Dan Hunt USAF (405) 734-3058 Environmental Management Directorate
OC-ALC/EM
Tinker AFB, OK 73145
Technology Demonstration USAEC (410) 671-2054 SFIM-AEC-ETD
and Transfer Branch Fax: (410) 612-6836 APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.44
4-19
4.5 SOIL FLUSHING
Description: In situ soil flushing is the extraction of contaminants from the soil with water or other suitable aqu
flushing is accomplished by passing the extraction fluid through in-place soils using an injection o
Extraction fluids must be recovered from the underlying aquifer and, when possible, they are recyc
4-5 TYPICAL SOIL FLUSHING SYSTEM

Recovered groundwater and flushing fluids with the desorbed contam inants may need treatment
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.45
4-19
discharge standards prior to recycle or release to local, publicly owned wastewater treatment
streams. To the maximum extent practical, recovered fluids should be reused in the flushing proc
of surfactants from recovered flushing fluid, for reuse in the process, is a major factor in the c
Treatment of the recovered fluids results in process sludges and residual solids, such as spent c
exchange resin, which must be appropriately treated before disposal. Air emissions of volatile
recovered flushing fluids should be collected and treated, as appropriate, to meet applicable r
Residual flushing additives in the soil may be a concern and should be evaluated on a site -specific
Applicability: The target contaminant group for soil flushing is inorganics including radioactive contaminants. The tec
to treat VOCs, SVOCs, fuels, and pesticides, but it may be less cost-effective than alternative te
contaminant groups. The addition of compatible surfactants may be used to increase the effective solubi
compounds; however, the flushing solution may alter the physical/chemical properties of the soil syste
offers the potential for recovery of metals and can mobilize a wide range of organic and inorganic contam
grained soils.
· Low permeability soils are difficult to treat.
· Surfactants can adhere to soil and reduce effective soil porosity.
· Reactions of flushing fluids with soil can reduce contaminant mobility.
· The potential of washing the contaminant beyond the capture zone and the introduction o
subsurface concern regulators. The technology should be used only where flushed co
flushing fluid can be contained and recaptured.
and Sludge). Treatability tests are required to determine the feasibility of the specific soil
considered. Physical and chemical soil characterization parameters that should be esta
permeability, soil structure, soil texture, soil porosity, moisture content, total organic carbon (TO
capacity (CEC), pH, and buffering capacity.
Contaminant characteristics that should be established include concentration, solubility, partition
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.45
4-20
products, reduction potential, and complex stability constants. Soil and contaminant characteristi
flushing fluids required, flushing fluid compatibility, and changes in flushing fluids with changes i
Performance
Data: Soil flushing is a developing technology that has had limited use in the United States. Typically,
treatability studies must be performed under site -specific conditions before soil flushing is selec
choice. To date, the technology has been selected as part of the source control remedy at 12 Su
technology is currently operational at only one Superfund site; a second was scheduled to begin
EPA completed construction of a mobile soil -flushing system, the In Situ Contaminant/Treatment
mobile soil-flushing system is designed for use at spills and uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
little commercial success with this technology.
Cost: Not available.
References: EPA, 1991. In Situ Soil Flushing, Engineering Bulletin, EPA/540/2-91/021.
Nash J., R.P. Traver, and D.C. Downey, 1986. Surfactant-Enhanced In Situ Soils Washing,
Services Laboratory, Florida. ESL-TR-97-18, Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA, Order No. A
Sturges, S.G., Jr., P. McBeth, Jr., R.C. Pratt, 1992. "Performance of Soil Flushing and Groundwa
United Chrome Superfund Site," Journal of Hazardous Materials, El Savior Science Pub., B.V.,
pp. 59-78.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.45
4-21
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
Laramie Tie Plant, Primary oil recovery to Total extractable 4,000 ppm
WY NA remove creosote organics = 93,000 NA
contamination. mg/kg
Points of Contact:
Michael Gruenfeld EPA, Releases Control FTS 340-6625 or 2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Branch, RREL (908) 321-6625 Building 10
Edison, NJ 08837
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.45
4-22
4.6 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION (IN SITU)
Description: Soil vapor extraction (SVE) is an in situ unsaturated (vadose) zone soil remediation technology in
applied to the soil to induce the controlled flow of air and remove volatile and some semivolatile co
soil. The gas leaving the soil may be treated to recover or destroy the contaminants, depending o
discharge regulations. Vertical extraction vents are typically used at depths of 1.5 meters (5 feet)
been successfully applied as deep as 91 meters (300 feet). Horizontal extraction vents (inst
horizontal borings) can be used as warranted by contaminant zone geometry, drill rig access, o
factors.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.46
4-23
IN SITU SOIL TREATMENT T ECHNOLOGIES
4-6 TYPICAL IN SITU SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM

Groundwater depression pumps may be used to reduce groundwater upwelling in duced by the va
the depth of the vadose zone. Air injection is effective for facilitating extraction of deep contamina
in low permeability soils, and contamination in the saturated zone (see Treatment Technolog
Sparging).
Applicability: The target contaminant groups for SVE are VOCs and some fuels. The technology is typically applic
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.46
4-24
4.6 SOIL VAPOR EXT
compounds with a Henry's law constant greater than 0.01 or a vapor pressure greater than 0.5 mmH
Other factors, such as the moisture content, organic content, and air permeability of the soil, wil
effectiveness. SVE will not remove heavy oils, metals, PCBs, or dioxins. Because the process involves
of air through the soil, however, it often promotes the in situ biodegradation of low -volatility organic com
present.
· Soil that is tight or has high moisture content (>50%) has a reduced permeability to a
vacuums (increasing costs) and/or hindering the operation of SVE.
· Large screened intervals are required in extraction wells for soil with highly variab
horizonation, which otherwise may result in uneven delivery of gas flow from the contaminat
· Soil that has high organic content or is extremely dry has a high sorption capacity of VO
reduced removal rat es.
· Air emissions may require treatment to eliminate possible harm to the public and the environ
· As a result of off-gas treatment, residual liquids and spent activated carbon may require trea
· SVE is not effective in the s aturated zone; however, lowering the water table can expose
(this may address concerns regarding LNAPLs).
and Sludge). Data requirements include the depth and areal extent of contamination, the c
contaminants, depth to water table, and soil type and properties (e.g., structure, texture, permea
content).
Pilot studies should be performed to provide design information, including extraction well, radius o
rates, optimal applied vacuum, and contaminant mass removal rates.
Performance
Data: A field pilot study is necessary to establish the feasibility of the method as well as to obtain info
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.46
4-25
design and configure the system. During full-scale operation, SVE can be run intermittently (pu
the extracted mass removal rate has reached an asymptotic level. This pulsed op eration ca
effectiveness of the system by facilitating extraction of higher concentrations of contaminants. Af
are removed by SVE, other remedial measures, such as biodegradation, can be investigated
objectives have not been met. SVE projects are typically completed in 18 months.
Cost: The cost of SVE is site-specific, depending on the size of the site, the nature and amount of con
hydrogeological setting (EPA, July 1989). The se factors affect the number of wells, the blower c
level required, and the length of time required to remediate the site. A requirement for off
significantly to the cost. Water is also frequently extracted during the process and usually requir
disposal, further adding to the cost. Cost estimates for SVE range between $10 and $50 per cubic
per cubic yard) of soil. Pilot testing typically costs $10,000 to $100,000.
References: EPA, 1989. Terra Vac, In Situ Vacuum Extraction System, EPA RREL, Applications Analysis Re
EPA Report EPA/540/A5-89/003.
EPA, 1989. Terra Vac — Vacuum Extraction, EPA RREL, series includes Technology Evaluation
89/003a, PB89-192025; Technology Evaluation, Vol. II, EPA/540/A5 -89/003b; Applications An
89/003; Technology Demonstration Summary, EPA/540/S5 -89/003; and Demonstration Bul
89/003.
EPA, 1990. State of Technology Review: Soil Vapor Extraction System Technology, Hazardou
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/600/2-89/024.
EPA, 1991. AWD Technologies, Inc. — Integrated Vapor Extraction and Stream Vacuum St
series includes Applications Analysis, EPA/540/A5-91/002, PB89-192033, and Demonstration Bu
89/003.
EPA 1991. Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: Soil Vapor Extraction
DC, EPA Report EPA/540/2-91/019A.
EPA, 1991. In-Situ Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment, Engineering Bulletin, RREL, Cincinna
91/006.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.46
4-26
4.6 SOIL VAPOR EXT
EPA, 1991. Soil Vapor Extraction Technology Reference Handbook,EPA, RREL, Cincinnati, OH
J.T. Curtis, Editors, EPA/540/2-91/003.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.46
4-27
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
DOE, Savannah Brian B. Looney Horizontal wells are 1,800 ppb TCE 30 ppb TCE Demo —
River, Aiken, SC Westinghouse Savannah concurrently used to $44/kg
River Co. remediate soils and Prep —
P.O. Box 616 groundwater. $300,000-
Aiken, SC 29802 $450,000
(803) 725-3692
Groveland Wells Mary Stinson Pilot system 3-350 ppm TCE Non-detect to $30 to $75
Superfund Site EPA Technical Support 39 ppm TCE per metric
Groveland, MA Branch, RREL ton ($30 to
2890 Woodbridge Ave. $70 per ton)
Building 10 of soil
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
(908) 321-6683
Terra Vac
(714) 252-8900
Hill AFB, UT Major Mark Smith Full-scale system at JP-4
USAF jet fuel spill site NA NA NA
Letterkenny AD USAEC ETD Large-scale (>50 vents) > 1,000 ppm total $2M design,
3
Chambersburg, Bldg. 4435 pilot system. 1,530 m VOCs NA install, and
3
PA APG, MD 21010 (2,000 yd ) treated. operation.
(410) 671-2054
Points of Contact:
Mike O'Rear DOE Savannah River (803) 725-5541 Aiken, SC
Ramon Mendoza EPA Region IX (415) 744-2410 75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Arthur L. Baehr USGS (609) 771-3978 810 Bear Tavern Rd., Suite 206
West Trenton, NJ 08628
Michael Gruenfeld EPA Releases Control (908) 321-6625 2890 Woodbridge Ave.
Branch, RREL MS-104
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
Stacy Erikson EPA (303) 294-1084 One Denver Place
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.46
4-28
4.6 SOIL VAPOR EXT
999 18th Street

Denver, CO 80202-2466
Major Mark Smith USAF (904) 283-6126 AL/EQW
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403
Mary K. Stinson EPA Technical Support (908) 321-6683 2890 Woodbridge Ave
Branch, RREL MS-104
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.46
4-29
4.7 SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION (IN SITU)
Description: Solidification/stabilization (S/S) reduces the mobility of hazardous substances and contaminants
through both physical and chemical means. Unlike other remedial technologies, S/S seeks to
contaminants within their "host" medium (i.e., the soil, sand, and/or building materials that conta
removing them through chemica l or physical treatment. Leachability testing is typically perfo
immobilization of contaminants. In situ S/S techniques use auger/caisson systems and injector he
S/S agents to in situ soils.
4-7 TYPICAL AUGER/CAISSON AND REAGENT/INJECTOR HEAD IN SITU

SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION SYSTEMS
S/S techniques can be used alone or combined with other treatment and disposal methods to yield a
suitable for land disposal or, in other cases, that can be applied to beneficial use. These technique
both final and interim remedial measures.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.45
4-27
Applicability: The target contaminant group for in situ S/S is inorganics (including radionuclides). The technology has
against SVOCs and pesticides and no expected effectiveness against VOCs; however, systems designed
in treating organics are being developed and tested.
· Depth of contaminants may limit some types of application processes.
· Future usage of the site may "weather" the materials and affect ability to maintai
contaminants.
· Some processes result in a significant increase in volume (up to double the original volume).
· Certain wastes are incompatible with variations of this process. Treatability studies are gen
· Reagent delivery and effective mixing are more difficult than for ex situ applications.
· Like all in situ treatments, confirmatory sampling can be more difficult than for ex situ treat
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.1 (Data Requ irement
and Sludge). Data needs include particle size, Atterberg limits, moisture content, metal concentrati
organic content, density, permeability, unconfined compressive strength, leachability, pH, and micr
Performance
Data: S/S technologies are well demonstrated, can be applied to the most common site and waste types, r
materials handling equipment, and are available competitively from a number of vendors. Most re
are also widely available and relatively inexpensive industrial commodities.
In situ S/S processes have demonstrated the capability to reduce the mobility of contaminated w
95%.The effects, over the long term, of weathe ring (e.g., freeze -thaw cycles, acid precipitation
groundwater infiltration, and physical disturbance associated with uncontrolled future land use ca
the integrity of the stabilized mass and contaminant mobility in ways that cannot be predicted by la
Cost: Costs for cement -based stabilization techniques vary widely according to materials or reagents us
project size, and chemical nature of contaminants (e.g., types and concentr ation levels for shallow
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.45
4-28
in situ soil mixing/auger techniques average $50 to $80 per cubic meter ($40 to $60 per cubic y
applications and $190 to $330 per cubic meter ($150 to $250 per cubic yard) for the deeper appl
The shallow soil mixing technique processes 36 to 72 metric tons (40 to 80 tons) per hour on averag
mixing technique averages 18 to 45 metric tons (20 to 50 tons) per hour.
The major factor driving the selection process beyond basic waste compatibility is the availability
S/S processes require that potentially large volumes of bulk reagents and additives be transpor
Transportation costs can dominate project economics and can qu ickly become uneconomical in
regional material sources are unavailable.
References: EPA, 1989. Chemfix Technologies, Inc. — Chemical Fixation/Stabilization, EPA RREL, series
Evaluation, Vol. I, EPA/540/5-89/011a, PB91-127696, and Technology Evaluation, Vol. II,
PB90-274127.
EPA, 1989. Hazcon — Solidification, EPA RREL, series includes Technology Evaluation, Vol. I,
PB89-158810; Technology Evaluation, Vol. II, EPA/540/5 -89/001b, PB89-158828; Ap
EPA/540/A5-89/001; and Technology Demonstration Summary, EPA/540/S5 -89/001.
EPA, 1989. IWT/GeoCon In-Situ Stabilization, EPA RREL, series includes Technology
EPA/540/5-89/004a; Technology Evaluation, Vol. II, EPA/540/5-89/004b, PB89-194179; Techno
III, EPA/540/5-89/004c, PB90-269069; Technology Evaluation, Vol. IV, EPA/540/5 -
Applications Analysis, EPA/540/A5-89/004; Technology Demonstration Summary, EPA/540/S5
Demonstration Summary — Update Report, EPA/540/S5 -89/004a; and Demonstration Bulletin, E
EPA, 1989. SITE Program Demonstration Test International Waste Technologies In Situ Stabil
Hialeah, Florida, Technology Evaluation Report, EPA RREL, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/540/5 -89/004
EPA, 1989. Soliditech, Inc. — Solidification, EPA RREL, series includes Technology Evaluation
89/005a; Technology Evaluation, Vol. II, EPA/540/5-89/005b, PB90-191768; Applications An
89/005; Technology Demonstration Summary, EPA/540/S5 -89/005; and Demonstration Bul
89/005.
EPA, 1989. Stabilization/Solidification of CERCLA and RCRA Wastes: Physical Tests

Procedures, Technology Screening, and Field Activities,EPA, CERL, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/625/6
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.45
4-29
EPA, 1990. International Waste Technologies/Geo-Con In Situ Stabilization/Solidification,

EPA, ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/540/A5-89/004.
EPA, 1993. Solidification/Stabilization and Its Application to Waste Materials, Technical Resou
ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/530/R-93/012.
EPA, 1993. Solidification/Stabilization of Organics and Inorganics, Engineering Bulletin, EP

OH, EPA/540/S-92/015.
Wiles, C.C., 1991. Treatment of Hazardous Waste with Solidification/Stabilization, EPA Report
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.45
4-30
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
Hialeah, FL Jeff Newton Deep soil mixing using drive $111-
International Waste auger to inject additive sl
urry $194/ton
Technologies and water into in-place soil.
150 North Main Street, NA NA
Suite 910
Wichita, KS 67202
(316) 269-2660
Geo-Con
Dave Miller
(817) 383-1400
Points of Contact:
Mary K. Stinson EPA RREL (908) 321-6683 2890 Woodbridge Avenue (MS-104)
Fax: (908) 321-6640 Edison, NJ 08837-3679
Patricia M. Erikson EPA RREL (513) 569-7884 26 West M.L. King Drive
Fax: (513) 569-7676 Cincinnati, OH 45268
Edward R. Bates EPA RREL (513) 569-7774 26 West M.L. King Drive
John Cullinane USAE-WES (601) 636-3111 ATTN: LEWES-EE-S
3909 Halls Ferry Road
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.45
4-31
4.8 THERMALLY ENHANCED SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION
Description: Thermally enhanced SVE is a full-scale technology that uses steam/hot -air injection or electric/rad
to increase the mobility of semi- volatiles and facilitate extraction. The process is otherwise ident
(Treatment Technology Profile 4.6).
4-8 TYPICAL THERMALLY ENHANCED SVE SYSTEM
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.48
4-31
Applicability: The system is designed to treat SVOCs but will consequently treat VOCs. T hermally enhanced SVE
effective in treating some pesticides and fuels, depending on the temperatures achieved by the system.
this process, subsurface conditions are excellent for biodegradation of residual contam inants.
· Debris or other large objects buried in the media can cause operating difficulties.
· Performance in extracting certain contaminants varies depending upon the maximum tem
the process selected.
· The soil structure at the site may be modified depending upon the process selected.
· Soil that is tight or has high moisture content has a reduced permeability to air, hinder
thermally enhanced SVE and requiring more energy input to increase vacuum and temperatu
· Soil with highly variable permeabilities may result in uneven delivery of gas flow to the cont
· Soil that has a high organic content has a high sorption capacity of VOCs, which results
rates.
· Air emissions may need to be regulated to eliminate possible harm to the public and th
treatment and permitting will increase project costs.
· Residual liquids and spent activated carbon may require further treatment.
· Thermally enhanced SVE is not effective in the saturated zone; however, lowering the aquif
media to SVE (this may address concerns regarding LNAPLs).
and Sludge). Data requirements include the depth and areal extent of contamination, the c
contaminants, depth to water table, and soil type and properties (e.g., structure, texture, permea
content).
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.48
4-32
4.8 THERMALLY ENHANCED SOIL VA
Performance
Data: The thermally enhanced SVE processes are notably different and should be investigated individua
information. Because thermally enhanced SVE is an in situ remedy and all contaminants are und
operation, the possibility of contaminant release is greatly reduced.
As with SVE, remediation projects using thermally enhanced SVE systems are hi ghly dependent
and chemical properties of the contaminated media. The typical site consisting of 18,200 metric t
contaminated media would require approximately 9 months.
DOE has developed and tested several th ermally enhanced SVE processes. Dynamic underground
steam injection and direct electric heating. Six phase soil heating is a pilot -scale technology that
electric phases through electrodes placed in a circle arou nd a soil vent. Thermally enhanced vap
combines conventional SVE with both powerline frequency and radiofrequency soil heating.
Cost: Available data indicate the overall cost for thermally enhanced SVE systems is approximately $3
meter ($25 to $100 per cubic yard).
References: Dev, H., G.C. Sresty, J. Enk, N. Mshaiel, and M. Love, 1989. Radiofrequency Enhanced Dec
Contaminated with Halogenated Hydrocarbons,EPA RREL, ORD, Cincinnati, OH, EPA Report
DOE, 2 October 1992. RCRA Research, Development and Demonstration Permit Applic
Enhanced Vapor Extraction System, Sandia National Laboratories, Environmental Rest
Department, Albuquerque, NM.
DOE, 26 February 1993. Technology Name: Thermal Enhanced Vapor Extraction System,
Profile (Rev. 2) for ProTech, DOE ProTech Database, TTP Reference No.: AL -221121.
EPA, 1990. Toxic Treatments (USA) — In-Situ Steam/Hot Air Stripping, EPA RREL, series
Analysis, EPA/540/A5-90/008, and Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/M5-90/003.
Pedersen, T.A., and J.T. Curtis, 1991. Soil Vapor Extraction Technology Reference Ha
Cambridge, MA, for EPA RREL, ORD, Cincinnati, OH, EPA Report EPA/540/2-91/003.
WESTON, IIT Research Institute, November 1992. Final Rocky Mountain Arsenal In Si
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.48
4-33
Heating/Vapor Extraction Pilot Test Report, Vol. I, U.S. Army Report 5300 -01-12-AAFP.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.48
4-34
4.8 THERMALLY ENHANCED SOIL VA
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
Annex Terminal Paul dePercin In situ steam and air 85% VOC and $330 to
3
San Pedro, CA EPA RREL stripping of soil via hollow- 55% SVOC $415/m
26 West M.L. King Dr. stem, rotating-blade drills. NA removal ($252 to
3
Cincinnati, OH 45268 $317/yd )
(513) 569-7797
Lockheed Norma Lewis Integrated groundwater Groundwater: 98-99.9% VOC $4.3M and
Aeronautical EPA stripping and soil system. TCE 2.2 ppm removal $630,000
Systems 26 West M.L. King Dr. PCE 11 ppm annual O&M
Burbank, CA Cincinnati, OH 45268 Soil gas: for 1,000
(513) 569-7665 Total VOC gpm system
(513) 569-7684 6,000 ppm
DOE Sandia James M. Phelan Integrated resistive $16-$33/
National Lab. Sandia National (powerline) and radio metric ton
Albuquerque, NM Laboratories frequency (microwave) NA NA ($15-30/ton),
P.O. Box 5800 heating to remedy organic, varies by soil
Albuquerque, NM 87185 fire training, and chemical moisture
(505) 845-9892 production waste landfill.
Volkfield, WI Paul Carpenter In situ IITRI design. 99% VOC, 83- $45/ton in
AL/EQW NA 99% SVOC shallow sand
Tyndall AFB, FL removal
(904) 283-6187
Kelly AFB, TX Paul Carpenter Two pilot-scale demos of RF >90% VOC <$100/ton in
AL/EQW heating: IITRI and KAI NA and SVOC shallow clay
Tyndall AFB, FL designs. removal
(904) 283-6187
FAX: (904) 283-6286
DSN: 523-6187
DSN FAX: (904) 523-6286
Points of Contact:
Skip Chamberlain DOE Program Manager (301) 903-7248 EM-551, Trevion II
DOE
Gordon M. Evans EPA RREL (513) 569-7684 26 West M.L. King Drive
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.48
4-35

Darrell Bandy DOE Albuquerque (505) 845-6100 P.O. Box 5400
Operations Albuquerque, NM 87115-5400
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.48
4-36
4.9 IN SITU VITRIFICATION
Description: In situ vitrification (ISV) uses an electric current to melt soil or other earthen materials at extreme
(1,600 to 2,000 ? C or 2,900 to 3,650 ? F) and thereby immobilize most inorganics and destroy o
pyrolysis. Inorganic pollutants are incorporated within the vitrified glass and crystalline mass
organic pyrolysis combustion products are captured in a hood, which draws the contaminants into
system that removes particulates and other pollutants from the gas.
4-9 TYPICAL IN SITU VITRIFICATION SYSTEM

High temperatures are achieved using a square array of four graphite electrodes. To initiate th
conducting material (graphite) is placed on the surface of the soil so that current can flow in the so
temperature of water (dry soil is not conductive after the conduction path in soil pore water is boile
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.49
4-35
point of the soil. The joule heating of t he starter path achieves temperatures high enough to m
dependent on the soil's alkali metal oxide content), at which point the soil becomes conductive. T
grows downward and outward. New designs incorporate a movin g electrode mechanism to achie
depth. A vacuum pressurized hood is placed over the vitrification zone to contain and proces
emanating from the soil during vitrification. The vitrification product is a chemically stable, leac
crystalline material similar to obsidian or basalt rock. The process destroys and/or remove
Radionuclides and heavy metals are retained within the molten soil.
The ISV process was invented by Battelle , Pacific Northwest Laboratory for DOE in 1980. The
DOE, is licensed to Battelle, and is sublicensed to Geosafe Corporation for worldwide rights (Pa
issued 15 March 1983).
Applicability: The ISV process can destro y or remove organics and immobilize most inorganics in contaminated soi
earthen materials. The process has been tested on a broad range of VOCs and SVOCs, other organics in
PCBs, and on most priority pollutant metal s and radionuclides.
· Rubble exceeding 20% by weight.
· Heating the soil may cause subsurface migration of contaminants into clean areas.
· Combustible organics in the soil or sludge exceeding 5 to 10 weight percent (wt%), depen
value.
· The solidified material may hinder future site use.
· Processing of contamination below the water table may require some means to limit recha
and Sludge). A minimum alkali content in soil (sodium and potassium oxides) of 1.4 wt% is nece
The composition of most soils is well within the range of processability.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.49
4-36
4.9 IN S
Performance
Data: There have been few, if any, commercial applications of ISV. The ISV process has been o
demonstration purposes at the pilot scale and at full sca le at the following sites: (1) Geosafe Corpo
DOE's Hanford Nuclear Reservation, (3) DOE's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and (4) DO
Engineering Laboratory. More than 170 tests at various scales have been performed on a broad
in soils and sludges. A demonstration will take place at the Parsons/ETM site in Grand Ledge, M
process is currently operating.
Process depths up to 6 meters (19 ft) have been achieved in re latively homogeneous soils. The
limited under certain heterogeneous conditions.
Cost: Average costs for treatability tests (all types) are $25K plus analytical fees; for PCBs and diox
plus analytical. Remedial design varies with the design firm. Equipment mobilization and dem
$200K to $300K combined. Vitrification operation cost varies with electricity costs, quantity of
process.
References: DOE, 1992. In Situ Vitrification, Technology Transfer Bulletin, prepared by Battelle's Pacific No
for DOE, Richland, WA.
DOE, January 1992. "ISV Planning and Coordination," FY92 Technical Task Plan and Technic
TTP Reference No. RL-8568-PT.
DOE, July 1992. "116-B-6A Crib ISV Demonstration Project," FY92 Technical Task Plan
Description, TTP Reference No. RL-8160-PT.
EPA, 1994. In-Situ Vitrification — Geosafe Corportion, EPA RREL, Demonstration Bulletin, EP
Kuhn, W.L., May 1992. Steady State Analysis of the Fate of Volatile Contaminants During
Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA, prepared for DOE; PNL-8059, US-602.
Luey, J.S., S. Koegler, W.L. Kuhn, P.S. Lowerey, and R.G. Winkelman, September 1992.
Mixed-Waste Contaminated Soil Site: The 116-B-6A Crib at Hanford," CERCLA Treatability T
Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA, prepared for DOE, Report PNL -8281, UC-602.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.49
4-37
Spalding, B.P., G.K. Jacobs, N.W. Dunbar, M.T. Naney, J.S. Tixier, and T.D. Powell, November
Radioactive Pilot-Scale Test of In Situ Vitrification for the Stabilization of Contaminated Soil Si
Marietta Energy Systems, Publication No. 3962, prepared for DOE, Oak Ridge National Laborat
Report ORNL/TM-12201.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.49
4-38
4.9 IN S
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
Parson's Leonard Zintak, Jr. Four graphite electrodes andLow levels of Leachable Hg,
Chemical Site (517) 627-1311 glass frit inserted into soil. pesticides and Hg TCLP,
Grand Ledge, MI Fax: (517) 627-1594 Hood and off-gas treatment pesticide, non- NA
system placed over soil. detect
Points of Contact:
Jef Walker DOE Program Manager (301) 903-7966 EM-541, Trevion II
DOE
Teri Richardson EPA RREL (513) 569-7949 26 West M.L. King Drive
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.49
4-39
4.10 COMPOSTING
Description: Composting is a controlled biological process by which biodegradable hazardous material

microorganisms to innocuous, stabilized byproducts, typically at elevated temperatures in the ra
(120 to 130 ? F). The increased temperatures resul t from heat produced by microorganisms durin
the organic material in the waste. In most cases, this is achieved by the use of indigenous microo
excavated and mixed with bulking agents and organic amendments, such as wood chips, animal, a
to enhance the porosity of the mixture to be decomposed. Maximum degradation efficiency is achi
moisture content, pH, oxygenation, temperature, and the carbon -to-nitrogen ratio.
4-10 TYPICAL WINDROW COMPOSTING PROCESS
There are three process designs used in composting: aerated static pile composting (compost is fo
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.410
4-39
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
aerated with blowers or vacuum pumps), mechanically agitated i n-vessel composting (compost i
vessel where it is mixed and aerated), and windrow composting (compost is placed in long piles k
and periodically mixed with mobile equipment). Windrow composting has the potential to be
composting alternative. If VOC or SVOC contaminants are present in soils, off -gas control is requ
Applicability: The composting process may be applied to soils and lagoon sediments contaminated with biodegradable
Research and development and pilot efforts have demonstrated that aerobic, thermophilic composting is
concentration of explosives (TNT, RDX, and HMX) and associated toxicity to acceptable levels.
equipment used for composting are commercially available.
· Substantial space is required for composting.
· Excavation of contaminated soils is required and may cause the uncontrolled release of VOC
· Composting results in a volumetric increase in material because of the addition of amendmen
· Heavy metals are not treated by this method and can be toxic to the microorganisms.
and Sludge). Specific data required to evaluate the compost process include contaminant conce
requirements, availability and cost of amendments required for compost mixture, space availabl
type, nutrients, biodegradation capacity, and moisture -holding capacity.
Performance
Data: Windrow composting has been demonstrated as an effective technology for treatment of explosiv
During a field demonstration conducted by USAEC and the Umatilla Depot Activity (UMDA), T
as high as 99.7% in 40 days of operation, with the majority of removal occurring in the first 2
Maximum removal efficiencies for RDX and HMX were 99.8% and 96.8%, respectively. T
equipment requirements combined with these performance results make windrow composting
technically attractive.
Cost: Costs will vary with the amount of soil to be treated, the soil fraction in the compost, availability
type of contaminant, and the type of process design employed. Estimated costs for full -scale win
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.410
4-40
explosives-contaminated soils are approximately $190 per cubic yard for soil volumes of appro
Estimated costs for static pile composting and mechanically agitated in vessel composting are highe
be an economic alternative to thermal treatment, howev er, when cleanup criteria and regulato
suitable.
References: Ayorinde, O. and M. Reynolds, December 1989. "Low Temperature Effects on Systems
Explosives-Contaminated Soils," Part I, Literature Reviews, USACRREL.
Unkefer, P.J., J.L. Hanners, C.J. Unkefer, and J.F. Kramer, April 1990. "Microbial Cul
Degradation," in Proceedings of the 14th Annual Army Environmental Symposium, USATHAM
TE-TR-90055.
WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.), 1993. Windrow Composting Demonstration for Explosives
the Umatilla Depot Activity, Hermiston, Oregon, Final Report, Prepared for USAEC, Contract
0079, Report No. CETHA -TS-CR-93043.
Williams, R.T., P.S. Ziegenfuss, and P.J. Marks, September 1988. Field Demonstration - Comp
Contaminated Sediments at the Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant, USATHAMA Report AMXT
Williams, R.T., P.S. Ziegenfuss, and P.J. Marks, March 1989. Field Demonstration - Compo
Contaminated Sediments at the Badger Army Ammunition Plant (BAAP), USATHAMA Rep
89061.
Williams, R.T. and P.J. Marks, November 1991. Optimization of Composting for Explosives
USATHAMA Report CETHA-TS-CR-91053.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.410
4-41
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
UMDA USAEC ETD Successful large- 1,563 ppm TNT 4 ppm TNT $210/metric
Hermiston, OR APG, MD 21010 scale pilot 953 ppm RDX 2 ppm RDX ton
(410) 671-2054 demonstration of 156 ppm HMX 5 ppm HMX ($190/ton)
windrow composting for large-
scale
(20,000
tons)
cleanup
LAAP USAEC ETD Successful pilot- 5,200 ppm TNT 20 ppm TNT
Shreveport, LA APG, MD 21010 scale demonstration 500 ppm RDX 20 ppm RDX
(410) 671-2054 of mechanical in- NA
vessel composting
Cliff/Dow EPA Region V Aerobic/indigenous PAHs, As, Cu, Destroyed

Disposal Site Ken Glatz organism treatment Pb, Hg only the lower NA
3
Marquette, MI (312) 886-1434 of 7,000 m ; mole-cular
basically unsuc- weight PAHs;
cessful study did not reach
safety level
desired
Points of Contact:
John Cullinane or Judith USAE-WES (601) 636-3111 3909 Halls Ferry Road
Pennington Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Carl Potter EPA RREL (513) 569-7231 26 West M.L. King Dr.

MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.410
4-42
4.11 CONTROLLED SOLID PHASE BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
Description: Controlled solid phase biological treatment is a full-scale technology in which excavated soils
amendments and placed on a treatment area that includes leachat e collection systems and som
Controlled solid phase processes include prepared treatment beds, biotreatment cells, and soil pil
nutrients, oxygen, and pH can be controlled to enhance biodegradation.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.411
4-43
4-11 TYPICAL CONTROLLED TREATMENT UNIT FOR SOLID-PHASE BIOREMEDIATION

A variety of techniques are used to stimulate the bioremediation. If required, the treatment area
contained with an impermeable liner to minimize the risk of contaminants leaching into an unconta
prepared bed bioremediation techniques involve the continuous spray application of a nutrient solut
collection and recycle of the drainage from the soil p ile. The drainage itself may be treated in
recycling. Vendors have developed proprietary nutrient and additive formulations and methods f
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.411
4-44
4.11 CONTROLLED SOLID PHASE BIOLOG
formulation into the soil to stimulate biodegradation. The formulations are usually modi
conditions.
Soil piles and biotreatment cells commonly have an air distribution system buried under the soil to
soil either by vacuum or by positive pressure. The soil piles in this case can be up to 20 feet hig
covered with plastic to control runoff, evaporation, and volatilization and to promote solar heating.
in the soil that will volatilize into the air stream, the air leaving the soil may be treated to remove
before they are discharged to the atmosphere.
Applicability: Controlled solid-phase biological treatment is most effective in treating nonhalogenated VOCs and
Halogenated VOCs, SVOCs, and pesticides also can be treated, but the process may be less effective an
only to some compounds within these contaminant groups.
· A large amount of space is required.
· Excavation of contaminated soils is required.
· Treatability testing should be conducted to determine the biodegradability of contamina

oxygenation and nutrient loading rates.
· Solid phase processes have questiona ble effectiveness for halogenated compounds and may
in degrading transformation products of explosives.
· Similar batch sizes require more time to complete cleanup than slurry phase processes.
and Sludge). The first steps in preparing a sound design for biotreatment of contaminated soil inclu
· Site characterization.
· Soil sampling and characterization.
· Contaminant characterization.
· Laboratory and/or field treatability studies.
· Pilot testing and/or field demonstrations.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.411
4-45
Site, soil, and contaminant characterizations will be used to:
· Identify and quantify contaminants.
· Determine requirements for organic and inorganic amendments.
· Identify the presence of organic compounds that may be volatilized during composting.
· Identify potential safety issues.
· Determine requirements for excavation, staging, and movement of contaminated soil.
· Determine availability and location of utilities (electricity and water).
Laboratory or field treatability studies are needed to identify:
· Amendment mixtures that best promote microbial activity.
· Potential toxic degrada tion byproducts.
· Percent reduction and lower concentration limit of contaminant achievable.
· The potential degradation rate.
Performance
Data: Controlled solid phase biological treatment has been demonstrated for fuel -contaminated
information is contained in the following site information table.
Cost: Costs are dependent on the contaminant, procedure to be used, need for additional pre - and pos
for air emission control equipment. Controlled solid phas e processes are relatively simple and r
for operation and maintenance. Typical costs with a prepared bed and liner are $130 to $260 per c
$200 per cubic yard).
References: Hartz, A.A. and R.B. Beach, 1992. "Cleanup of Creosote -Contaminated Sludge Using a B
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.411
4-46
4.11 CONTROLLED SOLID PHASE BIOLOG
Proceedings of the HMC/Superfund '92, HMCRI, Greenbelt, MD.
Norris, et al., 1994. Handbook of Bioremediation, EPA-RSKERL, Lewis Publishers, CRC Pr

Boulevard, Boca Raton, FL 33431.
Pope, D.F. and J.E. Matthews, 1993. Bioremediation Using the Land Treatment Concept, EPA
93/164.
Sims, J.L., et al., 1989. Bioremediation of Contaminated Surface Soils, EPA, RSKERL, Ad
EPA/600/9-89/073.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.411
4-47
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
Marine Corps Bill Major Pilot study at fuel-leaking TPH 1,200 ppm 120 ppm after $88/metric ton
Mountain Warfare NFESC, Code 411 UST site — aerated soil 2 months ($80/ton)
Training Center Port Hueneme, CA 93043 pile on lined bed
Bridgeport, CA (805) 982-1808
3
Marine Corps R.L. Biggers Fuel from UST and spills 702 ppm average 234 ppm $36/m
3
Air Ground NFESC, Code 414 — heap pile research TPH average ($27/yd )
Combat Center Port Hueneme, CA 93043 project
Twenty-Nine (805) 982-2640
Palms, CA
Mobil Terminal Robert Leary or Sal CERCLA LEAD - full-scale gas, diesel, lead NYSDEC
Buffalo, NY Calandra aerated biocell remediation guidance
(716) 851-7220 since July 1991 of 11,500 based on NA
3
m ; non-native organisms TCLP
added
Points of Contact:
Teri Richardson EPA RREL (513) 569-7949 26 West M.L. King Drive
John Cullinane USAE-WES (601) 636-3111 Attn: CEWES-EE-S
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.411
4-48
4.12 LANDFARMING
Description: Landfarming is a full-scale bioremediation technology in which contaminated

soils, sediments, or sludges are applied onto the soil surface and periodically
turned over or tilled into the soil to aerate the waste. Although landfarming is
usually performed in place, landfarming systems are increasingly
incorporating liners and other methods to control leaching of contaminants,
which requires excavation and placement of contaminated soils.
4-12 TYPICAL LANDFARMING TREATMENT UNIT
Soil conditions are often controlled to optimize the rate of contaminant

degradation. Conditions normally controlled include:
· Moisture content (usually by irrigation or spraying).
· Oxygen level (by mixing the soil using tilling or aerating).
· Nutrients, primarily nitrogen and phosphorus (by fertilizing).
· pH (increased slightly by adding lime).
· Soil bulking (by adding soil amendments and by mixing using tilling,
etc.).
Applicability: Soil bioremediation has been proven most successful in treating petroleum
hydrocarbons. Because lighter, more volatile hydrocarbons such as gasoline are
treated very successfully by processes that use their volatility [i.e., soil vapor
(vacuum) extraction and bioventing], the use of aboveground bioremediation is
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.412 10/31/00
4-47
usually limited to heavier hydrocarbons. As a rule of thumb, the higher the

molecular weight (and the more rings with a PAH), the slower the degradation rate.
Also, the more chlorinated or nitrated the compound, the more difficult it is to
degrade. (Note: Many mixed products and wastes include some volatile
components that transfer to the atmosphere before they can be degraded.)
Contaminants that have been successfully treated include diesel fuel, No. 2
and No. 6 fuel oils, JP-5, oily sludge, wood -preserving wastes (PCP and
creosote), coke wastes, and certain pesticides.
Limitations: Factors that may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process
include:
· If excavation of contaminated soils is required, materials handling and

additional costs will be involved.
· Conditions advantageous for biological degradation of contaminants

are largely uncontrolled, which increases the length of time to complete
remediation, particularly for recalcitrant compounds.
· Reduction of VOC contaminant concentrations may be caused more by

volatilization than biodegradation.
· Inorganic contaminants will not be biodegra ded.
· Volatile contaminants, such as solvents, must be pretreated because

they would evaporate into the atmosphere, causing air pollution.
· Particulate matter is also a concern because it may cause a dust-

generation problem.
· Presence of metal ions may be toxic to the microbes and possibly leach
from the contaminated soil into the ground.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.1
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge). The following
contaminant considerations should be addressed prior to implementation:
types and concentrations of contaminants, depth profile and distribution of
contaminants, presence of toxic contaminants, presence of VOCs, and
presence of inorganic contaminants (e.g., metals).
The following site and soil considerations should be addressed prior to

implementation: surface geological features (e.g., topography and vegetative
cover), subsurface geological and hydrogeological features, temperature,
precipitation, wind velocity and direction, water availability, soil type and
texture, soil moisture content, soil organic matter content, cation exchange
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.412 10/31/00
4-48
4.12 LANDFARMING
capacity, water-holding capacity, nutrient content, pH, atmospheric

temperature, permeability, and microorganisms (degrad ative populations
present at site).
Performance
Data: Numerous full-scale operations have been used, particularly for sludges
produced by the petroleum industry. As with other biological treatments,
under proper conditions, landfarming can transform con taminants into
nonhazardous substances. Removal efficiencies, however, are a function of
contaminant type and concentrations, soil type, temperature, moisture, waste
loading rates, application frequency, aeration, volatilization, and other
factors.
Cost: Ranges of costs likely to be encountered are:
· Costs prior to treatment (assumed to be independent of volume to be

treated): $25,000 to $50,000 for laboratory studies; $100,000 to
$500,000 for pilot tests or field demonstrations.
· Cost of landfarming (in situ treatment requiring no excavation of soil):

$30 to $70 per cubic meter ($25 to $50 per cubic yard).
· Cost of prepared bed (ex situ treatment and placement of soil on a

prepared liner): $135 to $270 per cubic meter ($100 to $200 per cub ic
yard).
References: EPA, 1990. Bioremediation in the Field, EPA/540/2-90-004.
Norris, et al., 1994. Handbook of Bioremediation, EPA, RSKERL, Lewis

Publishers, CRC Press, 200 Corporate Boulevard, Boca Raton, FL 33431.
Pope, D.F. and J.E. Matthew s, 1993. Bioremediation Using the Land
Treatment Concept, EPA Report EPA/600/R-93/164.
Sims, J.L., et al., 1989. Bioremediation of Contaminated Surface Soils,

EPA, RSKERL, EPA Report EPA/600/9-89/073.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.412 10/31/00
4-49
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
Petroleum Products Al Leuscher Soils segregated by TPH 100 ppm
Terminal Remediation contamination type- treated 1,000 ppm
Technologies, Inc. for 3 years (seasonal NA
Concord, MA operation)
Fuel Oil Spill Joe Matthewson Heavy clays required additionTPH 100 ppm
Foster Wheeler of soil amendments— 120 6,000 ppm
Santa Fe Springs, CA treatment days NA
Creosote John Matthews NPL — Ongoing seasonal Pyrene Less than 7.3
EPA RSKERL operation 135 ppm ppm
P.O. Box 1198 NA
Ada, OK 74821 PCP 87 ppm
(405) 436-8600 132 ppm
Pesticide Storage 12-inch clay liner with Pesticide 5 ppm
Facility NA drainage employed— 5 86 ppm NA
months' treatment
Points of Contact:
(217) 352-6511 Champaign, IL 61826-9005
(800) USA-CERL
Ron Hoeppel NFESC (805) 982-1655 Code 411
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
Mark Zappi USAE-WES (601) 634-2856 Vicksburg, MS 39180
Demonstration and Fax: (410) 612-6836 APG, MD 21010-5401
Transfer Branch
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.412 10/31/00
4-50
4.13 SLURRY PHASE BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
Description: Slurry phase biological treatment involves the controlled treatment of

excavated soil in a bioreactor. The excavated soil is first processed to
physically separate stones and rubble. The soil is then mixed with water to a
predetermined concentration dependent upon the concentra tion of the
contaminants, the rate of biodegradation, and the physical nature of the soils.
Some processes pre -wash the soil to concentrate the contaminants. Clean
sand may then be discharged, leaving only contaminated fines and washwater
to biotreat. Typically, the slurry contains from 10 to 40% solids by weight.
4-13 TYPICAL BIOREACTOR PROCESS
The soil is maintained in suspension in a reactor vessel and mixed with

nutrients and oxygen. If necessary, an acid or alkali may be added to control
pH. Microorganisms also may be added if a suitable population is not
present. When biodegradation is complete, the soil slurry is dewatered.
Dewatering devices that may be used include clarifiers, pressure filters,
vacuum filters, sand drying beds, or centrifuges.
Applicability: Bioremediation techniques have been successfully used to remediate soils, sludges,
and groundwater contaminated by explosives, petroleum hydrocarbons,
petrochemicals, solvents, pesticides, wood preservatives, and other organic
chemicals. Bioremediation is not applicable for removal of inorganic contaminants.
Bioreactors are favored over in situ biological techniques for heterogenous soils,
low permeability soils, areas where underlying groundwater would be difficult to
capture, or when faster treatment times are required.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.413 10/31/00
4-51
include:
· Excavation of contaminated soils is required.
· Sizing of materials prior to putting them into the reactor can be

difficult and expensive. Nonhomogeneous soils can create serious
materials handling problems.
· Dewatering soil fines after treatment can be expensive.
· An acceptable method for disposing of nonrecyc led wastewaters is

required.
Performance
Data: Mobile treatment units that are quickly moved into and out of the site are
available. Residence time in the bioslurry reactors will vary depending on the
nature of the contaminants, their concentrations, an d the desired level of
removal. Residence time is typically 5 days for PCP-contaminated soil, 13
days for a pesticide-contaminated soil, and 60 days for refinery sludge.
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge). Although a specific
organic substance might have been shown to be amenable to biodegradation
in the laboratory or at other remediation sites, whether it degrades in any
specific soil/site condition is dependent on many factors. To determine
whether bioremediation is an appropriate and effective remedial treatment for
the contaminated soil at a particular site, it is necessary to characterize the
contamination, soil, and site, and to evaluate the bio degradation potential of
the contaminants.
Important contaminant characteristics that need to be identified in a

bioremediation feasibility investigation are their solubility and soil sorption
coefficient; their volatility (e.g., vapor pressure); their chemical reactivity
(e.g., tendency toward nonbiological reactions such as hydrolysis, oxidation,
and polymerization); and their biodegradability.
In a Navy bench-scale evaluation, the system has demonstrated 99.5% and

100% remediation of TNT and RDX, respectively.
Cost: Treatment costs using slurry reactors range from $130 to $200 per cubic
meter ($100 to $150 per cubic yard). Costs ranging from $160 to $210 per
cubic meter ($125 to $160 per cubic yard) are incurred when the slurry -
bioreactor off-gas has to be further treated because of the presence of volatile
compounds.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.413 10/31/00
4-52
4.13 SLURRY PHASE BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
References: EPA, 1990. Slurry Biodegradation, Engineering Bulletin, EPA/540/2-

90/016.
EPA, 1991. Pilot-Scale Demonstration of Slurry-Phase Biological Reactor

for Creosote-Contaminated Wastewater, EPA RREL, series includes
Technology Demonstration Summary, EPA/540/S5 -91/009; Technology
Evaluation Vol. I, EPA/540/5-91/009, PB93-205532; Applications Analysis,
EPA/540/A5 91/009; and Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/M5-91/009.
EPA, 1992. Bioremediation Case Studies, Abstracts, EPA, Washington, DC,

EPA/600/R-92/004.
EPA, 1992. Biotrol Soil Washing System for Treatment of a Wood

Preserving Site, Applications Analysis Report, EPA, ORD, Washington, DC,
EPA/540/A5-91/003.
EPA, Undated. International Technology Corporation— Slurry

Biodegradation, EPA RREL.
Montamagno, C.D., 1990. Feasibility of Biodegrading TNT-Contaminated

Soils in a Slurry Reactor - Final Technical Report, USATHAMA Report
CETHA-TE-CR-90062.
Zappi, M.E., D. Gunnison, C.L. Teeter, and N.R. Francigues, 1991.

Development of a Laboratory Method for Evaluation of Bioslurry Treatment
Systems, Presented at the 1991 Superfund Conference, Washington, DC.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.413 10/31/00
4-53
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
NWS Seal Beach, Steve MacDonald Pilot scale - BTEX- Treated to
CA NWS Seal Beach contaminated soil and drinking water
Code 0923 groundwater treated NA standards NA
Seal Beach, CA 90740 simultaneously.
(310) 594-7273
EPA BDAT Ronald Lewis Pilot scale - creosote and 96% PAH
RREL PAH contamination. removal in 2
26 West M.L. King Dr. NA weeks NA
(513) 569-7856
Fax: (513) 569-7620
Joliet AAP John Manning or Pilot scale - explosive TNT 1,300 ppm 10 mg/kg in $65 to
3
Joliet, IL Carlo Montemagno contamination. 15 days $262/m
3
Argonne National Lab ($50-$200/yd )
9700 South Cass Ave.
Argonne, IL 60439-4815
Points of Contact:
Carmen Lebron NFESC (805) 982-1615 Code 411
Mark E. Zappi USA WES (601) 634-2856 3903 Halls Ferry Road
Mary K. Stinson EPA RREL (908) 321-6683 2890 Woodbridge Ave.
MS-104
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.413 10/31/00
4-54
4.14 CHEMICAL REDUCTION/OXIDATION
Description: Reduction/oxidation (Redox) reactions che mically convert hazardous

contaminants to nonhazardous or less toxic compounds that are more stable,
less mobile, and/or inert. Redox reactions involve the transfer of electrons
from one compound to another. Specifically, one reactant is oxidized (loses
electrons) and one is reduced (gains electrons). The oxidizing agents most
commonly used for treatment of hazardous contaminants are ozone, hydrogen
peroxide, hypochlorites, chlorine, and chlorine dioxide. Chemical redox is a
full-scale, well-established technology used for disinfection of drinking water
and wastewater, and it is a common treatment for cyanide wastes. Enhanced
systems are now being used more frequently to treat contaminants in soils.
4-14 TYPICAL CHEMICAL REDUCTION/OXIDATION PROCESS
Applicability: The target contaminant group for chemical redox is inorganics. The technology can
be used but may be less effective against nonhalogenated VOCs and SVOCs, fuel
hydrocarbons, and pesticides.
include:
· Incomplete oxidation or formation of intermediate contaminants may

occur depending upon the contaminants and oxidizing agents used.
· The process is not cos t-effective for high contaminant concentrations
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.414 10/31/00
4-55
because of the large amounts of oxidizing agent required.
· Oil and grease in the media should be minimized to optimize process

efficiency.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is pro vided in Subsection 2.2.1
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge). Treatability tests
should be conducted to identify parameters such as water, alkaline metals,
and humus content in the soils; the presence of multiple phases; and total
organic halides that could affect processing time and cost.
Performance
Data: Chemical redox is a full-scale, well-established technology used for
disinfection of drinking water and wastewater, and it is a common treatment
for cyanide and chromium wastes. Enhanced systems are now being used
more frequently to treat hazardous wastes in soils.
Cost: Estimated costs range from $190 to $660 per cubic meter ($150 to $500 per
cubic yard).
References: EPA, Undated. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Superfund Site,

Project Summary, EPA/540/SR-93/516.
EPA, 1991. Chemical Oxidation Treatment, Engineering Bulletin, EPA,

OERR and ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/530/2-91/025.
Mayer, G., W. Bellamy, N. Ziemba, and L.A. Otis, 15-17 May 1990.
"Conceptual Cost Evaluation of Volatile Organic Compound Treatment by
Advanced Ozone Oxidation," Second Forum on Innovative Hazardous
Waste Treatment Technologies: Domestic and International, Philadelphia,
PA, EPA, Washington, DC, EPA Report EPA/2 -90/010.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.414 10/31/00
4-56
4.14 CHEMICAL REDUCTION/OXIDATION
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
Excalibur Norma Lewis Bench scale — 20,000 ppm $92 to
3
Technology EPA RREL Soil washing and catalytic $170/m
3
26 West M.L. King Dr. ozone oxidation NA ($70-$130/yd )
(513) 569-7665 Site demo scheduled for
Coleman Evans, Florida
Points of Contact:
Naomi Barkley EPA RREL (513) 569-7854 26 West M.L. King Dr.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.414 10/31/00
4-57
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.414 10/31/00
4-58
4.15 DEHALOGENATION (BASE-CATALYZED
DECOMPOSITION)
Description: The dehalogenation [base -catalyzed decomposition (BCD)] process was

developed by EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL), in
cooperation with the National Facilities Engineering Services Center
(NFESC) to remediate soils and sediments contaminated with chlorinated
organic compounds, especially PCBs, dioxins, and furans. Contaminated soil
is screened, processed with a crusher and pug mill, and mixed with sodium
bicarbonate. The mixture is heated to above 330 ? C (630 ? F) in a rotary
reactor to decompose and partially volatilize the contaminants.
4-15 TYPICAL BCD DEHALOGENATION PROCESS

The contaminant is partially decomposed rather than being transferred t o
another medium. Whereas alkaline polyethylene glycol (APEG) residuals
contain chlorine and hydroxyl groups, which make them water -soluble and
slightly toxic, the BCD process produces primarily biphenyl and low-boiling
point olefins, which are not water -soluble and are much less toxic, and
sodium chloride.
Applicability: The target contaminant groups for dehalogenation (BCD) are halogenated SVOCs
and pesticides. The technology can be also used to treat halogenated VOCs but will
generally be more expensive than other alternative technologies.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.415 10/31/00
4-59
include:
· High clay and moisture content will increase treatment costs.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data e lements is provided in Subsection 2.2.1
Performance
Data: NFESC and EPA have been jointly developing the BCD process since 1990.
Data from the Koppers Superfund site in North Carolina are inconclusive
regarding technology perfo rmance because of analytical difficulties. There
have been no commercial applications of this technology to date. The BCD
process has received approval by EPA's Office of Toxic Substances under the
Toxic Substances Control Act for PCB treatment. Complet e design
information is available from NFESC, formerly NCEL and NEESA.
Predeployment testing was completed at Naval Communications Station
Stockton in November 1991. The research, development, testing, and
evaluation stages were planned for Guam during t he first two quarters of
FY93. A successful test run with 15 tons of PCB soil was conducted in
February 1994.
Cost: The cost for full-scale operation is estimated to be $270 per metric ton ($245
per ton) and does not include excavation, refilling, resid ue disposal, or
analytical costs. Factors such as high clay or moisture content may raise the
treatment cost slightly.
References: EPA, 1991. BCD: An EPA-Patented Process for Detoxifying Chlorinated

Wastes, EPA, ORD.
NCEL, 1990. Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for the Removal and

Treatment of PCB-Contaminated Soils at Building 3000 Site PWC Guam.
NEESA and NCEL, August 1991. Chemical Dehalogenation Treatment:

Base-Catalyzed Decomposition Process, Technical Data Sheet.
NEESA and NCEL, July 1992. Chemical Dehalogenation Treatment:

Base-Catalyzed Decomposition Process, Technical Data Sheet.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.415 10/31/00
4-60
4.15 DEHALOGENATION (BCD)
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
Kopper's Superfund Data inconclusive because
Site, NC NA of analytical data. NA NA NA
PWC Guam Jess Lizama PCB 2,500 ppm PCB <10 ppm NA
average
NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Deh Bin Chan, Ph.D. NFESC (805) 982-4191 Code 411

Autovon 551-4191 560 Center Drive
R.L. Biggers NFESC (805) 982-2640 Code 414

Charles J. Rogers EPA RREL (513) 569-7757 26 West M.L. King Drive

and Transfer Branch Fax: APG, MD 21010-5401
(410) 612-6836
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.415 10/31/00
4-61
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.415 10/31/00
4-62
4.16 DEHALOGENATION (GLYCOLATE)
Description: Dehalogenation (glycolate) is a full-scale technology in w hich an alkaline

polyethylene glycol (APEG) reagent is used to dehalogenate halogenated
aromatic compounds in a batch reactor. Potassium polyethylene glycol
(KPEG) is the most common APEG reagent. Contaminated soils and the
reagent are mixed and heated i n a treatment vessel. In the APEG process, the
reaction causes the polyethylene glycol to replace halogen molecules and
render the compound nonhazardous or less toxic. For example, the reaction
between chlorinated organics and KPEG causes replacement of a chlorine
molecule and results in a reduction in toxicity. Dehalogenation
(APEG/KPEG) is generally considered a standalone technology; however, it
can be used in combination with other technologies. Treatment of the
wastewater generated by the process m ay include chemical oxidation,
biodegradation, carbon adsorption, or precipitation.
4-16 TYPICAL DEHALOGENATION (GLYCOLATE) PROCESS
The metal hydroxide that has been most widely used for this reagent
preparation is potassium hydroxide (KOH) in conjunction with polyethylene
glycol (PEG) (typically, average molecular weight of 400) to form a
polymeric alkoxide referred to as KPEG. Sodium hydroxide has also been
used in the past, however, and most likely will f ind increasing use in the
future because of patent applications that have been filed for modification to
this technology. This new approach will expand the technology's
applicability and efficacy and should reduce chemical costs by facilitating the
use of less costly sodium hydroxide. A variation of this reagent is the use of
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.416 10/31/00
4-63
potassium hydroxide or sodium hydroxide/tetraethylene glycol, referred to as

ATEG, that is more effective on halogenated aliphatic compounds. In some
KPEG reagent formulations, dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) is added to enhance
reaction rate kinetics, presumably by improving rates of extraction of the
haloaromatic contaminants.
Previously developed dehalogenation reagents involved dispersion of metallic

sodium in oil or the use of high ly reactive organosodium compounds. The
reactivity of metallic sodium and these other reagents with water presented a
serious limitation to treating many waste matrices; therefore, these other
reagents are not discussed here and are not considered APEG pr ocesses.
The reagent (APEG) dehalogenates the pollutant to form a glycol ether and/or
a hydroxylated compound and an alkali metal salt, which are water-soluble
byproducts.
Applicability: The target contaminant groups for glycolate dehalogenation are ha logenated SVOCs
and pesticides. The technology can be used but may be less effective against
selected halogenated VOCs. APEG dehalogenation is one of the few processes
available other than incineration that has been successfully field tested in treating
PCBs. The technology is amenable to small-scale applications.
include:
· The technology is generally not cost -effective for large waste volumes.
· Media water content above 20% requires excessive reagent volume.
· Concentrations of chlorinated organics greater than 5% require large

volumes of reagent.
Performance
Data: Dehalogenation (glycolate) has been used to successfully treat contaminant
concentrations of PCBs from less than 2 ppm to reportedly as high as 45,000
ppm. This technology has received approval from the EPA's Office of Toxic
Substances under the Toxic Substances Control Act for PCB treatment.
The APEG process has been selected for cleanup of PCB -contaminated soils
at three Superfund sites: Wide Beach in Erie County, New York (September
1985); Re-Solve in Massachusetts (September 1987); and Sol Lynn in Texas
(March 1988).
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.416 10/31/00
4-64
4.16 DEHALOGENATION (GLYCOLATE)
This technology uses standard equipment. The reaction vessel must be

equipped to mix and heat the soil and reagents. A detailed engineering design
for a continuous feed, full-scale PCB treatment system for use in Guam is
currently being completed. It is estimated that a full -scale system can be
fabricated and placed in operation in 6 to 12 months.
The concentrations of PCBs that have been treated are reported to be as high
as 45,000 ppm. Concentrations were reduced to less than 2 ppm per
individual PCB congener. PCDDs and PCDFs have been treated to
nondetectable levels at part per trillion sensitivity. The process has
successfully destroyed PCDDs and PCDFs contained in contaminated
pentachlorophenol oil. For a contaminated activated carbon matrix, direct
treatment was less effective, and the reduction of PCDDs/PCDFs to
concentrations less than 1 ppb was better achieved by first extracting the
carbon matrix with a solvent and then treating the extract .
Cost: Costs to use APEG treatment are expected to be in a range of $220 to $550
per metric ton ($200 to $500 per ton). Significant advances are currently
being made to the APEG technology. These advances employ water rather
than costly PEG to wet the soil and require shorter reaction times and less
energy. These advances should greatly enhance the economics of the process.
References: EPA, 1987. Catalytic Dehydrohalogenation: A Chemical Destruction

Method for Halogenated Organics, Project Summary, EPA/600/52-86/113.
EPA, 1989. Innovative Technology — Glycolate Dehalogenation, EPA,

OSWER, Washington, DC, Directive 9200 5-254FS.
EPA, 1990. Chemical Dehalogenation Treatment: APEG Treatment,

Engineering Bulletin, EPA, OERR and ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-
90/015.
EPA, 1990. Treating Chlorinated Wastes with the KPEG Process, Project
Summary, EPA RREL, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/600/S2-90/026.
EPA, 1992. A Citizen's Guide to Glycolate Dehalogenation, EPA, OSWER,

Washington, DC, EPA/542/F-92/005.
Taylor, M.L., et al. (PEI Associates), 1989. Comprehensive Report on the

KPEG Process for Treating Chlorinated Wastes, EPA Contract No. 68-03-
3413, EPA RREL, Cincinnati, OH.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.416 10/31/00
4-65
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
Montana Pole NA Dioxin, Furans/Oil <84 ppm <1 ppb NA
Butte, MT
Wide Beach NA PCBs (Aroclor 1254)/soil 120 ppm <2 ppm NA
Erie County, NY
Economy TCDD, 2, 4-D, 1.3 ppm Non-detect
Products NA 2, 4, 5-T (liquid) 17,800 ppm 334 ppm NA
Omaha, NE 2,800 ppm 55 ppm
Points of Contact:
Carl Brunner EPA RREL FTS 684-7757 26 West M.L. King Dr.
(513) 569-7757 Cincinnati, OH 45268
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.416 10/31/00
4-66
4.17 SOIL WASHING
Description: Soil washing is a water-based process for scrubbing soils ex situ to remove
contaminants. The process removes contaminants from soils in one of two
ways:
• By dissolving or suspending them in the wash solution (which is later

treated by conventional wastewater treatment methods).
• By concentrating them into a smaller volume of soil through particle

size separation, gravity separation, and attrition scrubbing (similar to
those techniques used in sand and gravel operations).
Soil washing systems incorporating most of the removal techniques offer the
greatest promise for application to soils contaminated with a wide variety of
heavy metal, radionuclides, and organic contaminants. Commercialization of
the process, however, is not yet extensive.
4-17 TYPICAL SOIL WASHING PROCESS
The concept of reducing soil contamination through the use of particle size
separation is based on the finding that most organic and inorganic
contaminants tend to bind, either chemically or physically, to clay, silt, and
organic soil particles. The silt and clay, in turn, are attached to sand and
gravel particles by physical processes, primarily compaction and adhesion.
Washing processes that separate the fine (small) clay and silt particles from
the coarser sand and gravel soil particles effectively separate and concentrate
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.417 10/31/00
4-67
the contaminants into a smaller volume of soil that can be further treated or
disposed of. Gravity separation is effective for removing high or low specific
gravity particles such as heavy metal-containing compounds (lead, radium
oxide, etc.). Attrition scrubbing removes adherent contaminant films from
coarser particles. The clean, larger fraction can be returned to the site for
continued use.
Applicability: The target contaminant groups for soil washing are SVOCs, fuels, and inorg anics.
The technology can be used on selected VOCs and pesticides. The technology offers
the potential for recovery of metals and can clean a wide range of organic and
inorganic contaminants from coarse-grained soils.
include:
· Fine soil particles (e.g., silt, clays) may require the addition of a
polymer to remove them from the washing fluid.
· Complex waste mixtures (e.g., metals with organics) make formulatin g

washing fluid difficult.
· High humic content in soil may require pretreatment.
· The aqueous stream will require treatment.
(Data Requirements for Soil, Se diment, and Sludge). Particle size
distribution (0.24 to 2 mm optimum range); soil type, physical form, handling
properties, and moisture content; contaminant type and concentration;
texture; organic content; cation exchange capacity; pH and buffering
capacity.
Performance
Data: At the present time, soil washing is used extensively in Europe but has had
limited use in the United States. During 1986 -1989, the technology was one
of the selected source control remedies at eight Superfund sites.
Soil washing is most commonly used in combination with the following

technologies: bioremediation, incineration, and solidification/stabilization.
Depending on the process used, the washing agent and soil fines are residuals
that require further treatment. When contaminated fines have been separated,
coarse-grain soil can usually be returned clean to the site. The time to
complete cleanup of the "standard" 18,200 -metric-ton (20,000-ton) site using
soil washing would be less than 3 months.
Cost: The average cost for use of this technology, including excavation, is
approximately $130 to $220 per metric ton ($120 to $200 per ton),
depending on the target waste quantity and concentration.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.417 10/31/00
4-68
4.17 SOIL WASHING
References: EPA, 1989. Innovative Technology: Soil Washing, OSWER Directive

9200.5-250FS.
EPA, 1989. Soils Washing Technologies for: Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks, Site
Remediation.
EPA, 1990. Soil Washing Treatment, Engineering Bulletin, EPA, OERR,

Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-90/017. Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA,
Order No. PB91-228056.
EPA, 1991. Biotrol— Soil Washing System, EPA RREL, series includes
Technology Evaluation Vol. I, EPA/540/5 -91/003a, PB92-115310;
Technology Evaluation Vol. II, Part A, EPA/540/5 -91/003b, PB92-115328;
Technology Evaluation Vol. II, Part B, EPA/540/5 -91/003c, PB92-115336;
Applications Analysis, EPA/540/A5-91/003; Technology Demonstration
Summary, EPA/540/S5-91/003; and Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/M5 -
91/003.
EPA, 1992. A Citizen's Guide to Soil Washing, EPA, OSWER, Washington,

DC, EPA/542/F-92/003.
EPA, 1992. Bergmann USA— Soil/Sediment Washing System, EPA RREL,

Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/MR-92/075.
EPA, 1993. Bescorp Soil Washing System Battery Enterprises Site— Brice
Environmental Services, Inc., EPA RREL, Demonstration Bulletin,
EPA/540/MR-93/503.
EPA, 1993. Biogenesis Soil Washing Technology, EPA RREL, series

includes Demonstration Bulletin, E PA/540/MR-93/510; Innovative
Technology Evaluation Report, EPA/540/R -93/510; and Site Technology
Capsule, EPA/540/SR-93/510.
Raghavan, R., D.H. Dietz, and E. Coles, 1988. Cleaning Excavated Soil
Using Extraction Agents: A State-of-the-Art Review, EPA Report EPA
600/2-89/034.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.417 10/31/00
4-69
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
Toronto Port Dennis Lang Soil washing (volume 52 ppm <5; 2.6
Industrial Dist. Toronto Harbor Comm. reduction), metal Naphthalene
Ontario, Canada 60 Harbour St. dissolution, and ; 10 ppm
Toronto, CA M5J 1B7 chemical hydrolysis benzo(a)- NA
(416) 863-2047 with biodegradation pyrene
Fax: (416) 863-4830 (organics)
Montclair Mike Eagle Attrition mills, 11 pCi/g $300/hour

Superfund Site EPA, Office of classifiers, and filter
Montclair, NJ Radiation Programs press to reduce the
401 M St., SW, amount of low-level
ANR-461 radioactive waste to NA
Washington, DC be disposed of, 56%
20460 volume reduction
(202) 233-9376
Excalibur Norma Lewis Bench scale — 20,000 ppm $92 to

3
Technology EPA RREL Soil washing and total capacity $170/m
26 West M.L. King Dr. catalytic ozone ($70-
3
Cincinnati, OH 45268 oxidation $130/yd )
(513) 569-7665 NA
Site demo scheduled
for Coleman Evans,
Florida
Alaskan Battery Hugh Masters Pilot scale, featuring 2,280- 15-2,541

Enterprises EPA RREL gravity separation 10,374 ppm ppm
Superfund Site, 2890 Woodbridge Ave. and particle size lead
Fairbanks, AK Building 10 classification
Edison, NJ
Twin Cities AAP Michael D. Royer Full scale, featuring Demonstra- Targets for
New Brighton, MN EPA RREL gravity separation, tion is in back-
2890 Woodbridge Ave. particle size progress. ground
Building 10 classification, metal Field work remedia- NA
Edison, NJ leaching, and lead completed tion: Cr,
(908) 321-6633 recovery but Cu, Hg,
laboratory and Ni.
work not Some
complete. batches
reached
state
remedia-
tion goals.
Escambia Wood Terri Richardson Pilot scale, featuring 550-1,700 45 ppm $151/metric
Treating Company EPA RREL particle size ppm PAHs PAHs ton
Superfund Site, 26 West M.L. King Dr. classification and 48-210 ppm 3 ppm ($137/ton)
Pensacola, FL Cincinnati, OH surfactant addition PCP PCPs (projected)
Macgill & Gibbs Dennis Chilcote Soil washing (volume 130 ppm 98,88% $168/ton
New Brighton, MN BioTrol, Inc. reduction), process PCP, removal
BioTrol 10300 Valley View Rd. water treated in a 247 ppm
Eden Prairie, MN bio-reactor, fines PAHs
55344-3456 treated in a slurry
(612) 942-8032 bioreactor.
Points of Contact:
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.417 10/31/00
4-70
4.17 SOIL WASHING
Michael Gruenfeld EPA RREL Technical Support (908) 321-6625 2890 Woodbridge Ave.
MS-104
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
S. Jackson Hubbard EPA RREL (513) 569-7507 26 West M.L. King Dr.
Jim Galloway USAED (313) 226-6760 Detroit, MI 48231-1027

Frank Snite

and Transfer Branch Fax: APG, MD 21010-5401
(410) 612-6836
Mary K. Stinson EPA RREL Technical Support (908) 321-6683 2890 Woodbridge Ave.
MS-104
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.417 10/31/00
4-71
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.417 10/31/00
4-72
4.18 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION (EX SITU)
Description: Ex situ soil vapor extraction (SVE) is a full-scale technology in w hich soil is
excavated and placed over a network of aboveground piping to which a
vacuum is applied to encourage volatilization of organics. The process
includes a system for handling off-gases. Advantages over its in situ
counterpart (Technology Profile No. 4.6) include that the excavation process
forms an increased number of passageways, shallow groundwater no longer
limits the process, leachate collection is possible, and treatment is more
uniform and easily monitored.
4-18 TYPICAL EX SITU SVE SYSTEM
Applicability: The target contaminant group for ex situ SVE is VOCs.
Limitations: The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the
process:
· Air emissions may occur during excavation and materials handling,

possibly requiring treatment.
· High humic content or compact soil inhibits volatilization.
· As a result of air emission treatment, SVE may require treating

residual liquid and spent activated carbon, increasing the project cost.
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge). Soil characteristics that
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.418 10/31/00
4-73
need to be determined include the concentration of the contaminants, soil type

and properties (e.g., texture, moisture content, particle size, permeability,
porosity, and TOC), and the presence of oil and grease. Key operating
parameters include air flow rate and vacuum pressure required.
Performance
Data: An advantage of the technology over its in situ counterpart is the increased
number of passageways formed by the excavation process; however, as an ex
situ remedy, the excavation associated with SVE poses a potential health and
safety risk to site workers through skin contact and air emissions. Personal
protective equipment, at a level commensurate with the contaminants
involved, is normally required during excavation operations. The time
required to remediate a site using ex situ SVE is highly dependent upon the
specific soil and chemical properties of the contaminated media. Cleanup of
a typical site, consisting of 18,200 metric tons (20,000 tons) of contaminated
media, would require 12 to 36 months. Generally, most of the hardware
components are relatively well developed with repair parts readily available
to minimize downtime. Typical ex situ SVE systems can be left unattended
for long periods of time.
Cost: The overall cost for ex situ SVE is under $110 per metric ton ($100 pe r ton),
including the cost of excavation but excluding treatment of off -gases and
collected groundwater.
References: EPA, 1990. State of Technology Review: Soil Vapor Extraction System
Technology, EPA Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, OH, EPA/600/2-89/024.
EPA, 1991. AWD Technologies, Inc.— Integrated Vapor Extraction and

Steam Vacuum Striping, EPA RREL, series includes Applications Analysis,
EPA/540/A5-91/002, PB92-218379; and Demonstration Bulletin,
EPA/540/M5-91/002.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.418 10/31/00
4-74
4.18 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION
Points of Contact:
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.418 10/31/00
4-75
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.418 10/31/00
4-76
4.19 SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION (EX SITU)
Description: As for in situ solidification/stabilization (S/S) (see Technology Profile No.

4.7), ex situ S/S contaminants are physically bound or enclosed within a
stabilized mass (solidification), or chemical reactions are induced between the
stabilizing agent and contaminants to reduce their mobility (stabilization). Ex
situ S/S, however, typically requires disposal of the resultant materials.
4-19 TYPICAL EX SITU SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Applicability: The target contaminant group for ex situ S/S is inorganics, including radionuclides.
The technology has limited effectiveness against SVOCs and pesticides; however,
systems designed to be more effective against organic contaminants are being
developed and tested.
include:
· Environmental conditions may affect the long -term immobilization of

contaminants.
· Some processes result in a significant increase in volume (up to double

the original volume).
· Certain wastes are incompatible with different processes. Treatability

studies are generally required.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.419 10/31/00
4-77
· VOCs are generally not immobilized.
· Long-term effectiveness has not been demonstrated for many

contaminant/process combinations.
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge). Soil parameters that
must be determined include particle size, Atterberg limits, moisture content,
metal concentrations, sulfate content, organic content, density, permeability,
unconfined compressive strength, leachability, microstructure analysis, and
physical and chemical durability.
Performance
Data: Depending upon the original contaminants and the chemical reactions that
take place in the ex situ S/S process, the resultant stabilized mass may have
to be handled as a hazardous waste. For certain types of radioactive waste,
the stabilized product must be capable of meeting stringent waste form
requirements for disposal (e.g., Class B or Class C low level materials).
Remediation of a site consisting of 18,200 metric tons (20,000 tons) could
require less than 1 month, depending on equipment size and type and soil
properties (e.g., percent solids and particle size).
DOE has demonstrated the Polyethylene Encapsulation of Radionuclides and

Heavy Metals (PERM) process at the bench scale. The process is a waste
treatment and stabilization technology for high-level mixed waste. Specific
targeted contaminants include radionuclides (e.g., cesium, strontium, and
cobalt), and toxic metals (e.g., chromium, lead, and cadmium). The process
should be ready for implementation in FY95.
Cost: Ex situ solidification/stabilization processes are among the most mature

remediation technologies. Representative overall costs from more than a
dozen vendors indicate an approximate cost of under $110 per metric ton
($100 per ton), including excavation.
References: Bricka, R.M., et al., 1988. An Evaluation of Stabilization/Solidification of

Fluidized Bed Incineration Ash (K048 and K051), USAE-WES Technical
Report EL-88-24.
EPA, 1989. Chemfix Technologies, Inc.— Chemical Fixation/Stabilization,

EPA RREL, Technology Evaluation Vol. I, EPA/540/5-89/011a,
PB91-127696; and Technology Evaluation Vol. II, EPA/540/5-89/011b,
PB90-274127.
EPA, 1989. Harcon— Solidification, EPA RREL, series includes Technology

Evaluation Vol. I, EPA/540/5-89/001a, PB89-158810; Technology
Evaluation Vol. II, EPA/540/5-89/001b, PB89-158828; Applications
Analysis, EPA/540/A5-89/001; and Technology Demonstration Summary,
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.419 10/31/00
4-78
4.19 SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION
EPA/540/S5-89/001.
EPA, 1989. Solidtech, Inc.— Solidification, EPA RREL, series includes

Technology Evaluation Vol. I, EPA/540/5S-89/005a; Technology Evaluation
Vol. II, EPA/540/5S-89/005b, PB90-191768; Applications Analysis,
EPA/540/A5-89/005; Technology Demonstration Summary, EPA/540/S5 -
89/005; and Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/M5-89/005.
EPA, 1989. Stabilization/Solidification of CERCLA and RCRA Wastes —

Physical Tests, Chemical Testing Procedures, Technology Screening and
Field Activities, EPA, ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/625/6-89/022.
EPA, 1992. Silicate Technology Corporation— Solidification/Stabilization

of Organic/Inorganic Contaminants, EPA RREL, Demonstration Bulletin,
EPA/540/MR-92/010; Applications Analysis, EPA/540/AR-92/010, PB93-
172948.
EPA, 1993. Solidification/Stabilization and Its Application to Waste

Materials, Technical Resource Document, EPA, ORD, Washington, DC,
EPA/530/R-93/012.
EPA, 1993. Solidification/Stabilization of Organics and Inorganics,

Engineering Bulletin, EPA, ORD, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/540/S-92/015.
DOE, 1993. Technology Name: Polyethylene Encapsulation, Technology

Information Profile (Rev. 2) for ProTech, DOE ProTech Database, TTP
Reference No. BH -321201.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.419 10/31/00
4-79
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
Portable Edwin Barth - EPA Dry alumina, calcium, and 93.2 to $80/metric ton
Equipment CERI silica blended in reaction >99.9% ($73/ton)
Salvage vessel. reduction of
Clackamas, OK NA Cu, Pb, and
Zn TCLP
levels
Naval NFESC Code 411 Spent blasting abrasives <5 ppm TCLP $94/metric ton
Construction Port Hueneme, CA 93043 screened and mixed with ($85/ton)
Battalion Center (614) 424-5442 portland cement and soluble NA
Port Hueneme, silicates.
CA
Robins AFB Terry Lyons Addition of pozzolonic
Macon, GA EPA RREL cementitious materials.
26 West M.L. King Dr. NA NA NA
(513) 569-7589
Points of Contact:
Edwin Barth EPA CERI (513) 569-7669 26 West M.L. King Dr.
Mark Bricka USAE-WES (601) 634-3700 CEWES-EE-S
Patricia M. Erikson EPA RREL (513) 569-7884 26 West M.L. King Dr.
Sherry Gibson DOE (301) 903-7258 EM-552, Trevion II
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.419 10/31/00
4-80
4.20 SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Description: Solvent extraction d oes not destroy wastes but is a means of separating
hazardous contaminants from soils, sludges, and sediments, thereby reducing
the volume of the hazardous waste that must be treated. The technology uses
an organic chemical as a solvent and differs from soil washing, which
generally uses water or water with wash -improving additives. Commercial-
scale units are in operation; they vary in regard to the solvent employed, type
of equipment used, and mode of operation.
4-20 TYPICAL SOLVENT EXTRACTION PROCESS
Solvent extraction is commonly used in combination with other technologies,

such as solidification/stabilization, incineration, or soil washing, depending
upon site-specific conditions. It also can be used as a standalone technology
in some instances. Organically bound metals can be extracted along with the
target organic contaminants, thereby creating residuals with special handling
requirements. Traces of solvent may remain within the treated soil matrix, so
the toxicity of the solvent is an important consideration. The treated media
are usually returned to the site after having met Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BDAT) and other standards.
Applicability: Solvent extraction has been shown to be e ffective in treating sediments, sludges, and
soils containing primarily organic contaminants such as PCBs, VOCs, halogenated
solvents, and petroleum wastes. The technology is generally not used for extracting
inorganics (i.e., acids, bases, salts, or heavy metals). Inorganics usually do not have
a detrimental effect on the extraction of the organic components, and sometimes
metals that pass through the process experience a beneficial effect by changing the
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.420 10/31/00
4-81
chemical compound to a less toxic or leachable fo rm. The process has been shown
to be applicable for the separation of the organic contaminants in paint wastes,
synthetic rubber process wastes, coal tar wastes, drilling muds, wood -treating
wastes, separation sludges, pesticide/insecticide wastes, and pe troleum refinery oily
wastes.
include:
· Organically bound metals can be extracted along with the target

organic pollutants, which restricts handling of the residua ls.
· The presence of detergents and emulsifiers can unfavorably influence

the extraction performance.
· Traces of solvent may remain in the treated solids; the toxicity of the
solvent is an important consideration.
· Solvent extraction is general ly least effective on very high molecular

weight organic and very hydrophilic substances.
· Some soil types and moisture content levels will adversely impact
process performance.
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge). It is important to
determine whether mass transfer or equilibrium will be controlling. The
controlling factor is critical to the design of the unit and to the determination
of whether the technology is appropriate for the waste.
Soil properties that should be determined include particle size; pH; partition
coefficient; cation exchange capacity; organic content; TCLP; moisture
content; and the presence of metals, volatiles, clays, a nd complex waste
mixtures.
Performance
Data: The performance data currently available are mostly from Resource
Conservation Company (RCC). The ability of RCC's full-scale B.E.S.T.?
process to separate oily feedstock into product fractions was evaluated by
EPA at the General Refining Superfund site near Savannah, Georgia, in
February 1987. The treated soils from this unit were backfilled to the site,
product oil was recycled as a fuel oil blend, and the recovered water was pH -
adjusted and transported to a local industrial wastewater treatment facility.
Cost: Cost estimates for this technology range from $110 to $440 per metric ton
($100 to $400 per ton).
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.420 10/31/00
4-82
4.20 SOLVENT EXTRACTION
References: EPA, 1988. Evaluation of the B.E.S.T. ? Solvent Extraction Sludge

Treatment Technology Twenty-Four Hour Test, EPA/600/2-88/051.
EPA, 1988. Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA Soils

and Sludges — Appendix B.1: Chemical Extraction, EPA, Washington, DC,
EPA/540/2-88/004.
EPA, 1989. Innovative Technology: B.E.S.T.? Solvent Extraction Process,

OSWER Directive 9200.5-253FS.
EPA, 1990. CF Systems Organics Extraction Process New Bedford Harbor,

MA, Applications Analysis Report, Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation, Washington, DC, EPA/540/A5-90/002. Available from NTIS,
Springfield, VA, Order No. PB91-1133845.
EPA, 1990. CF Systems Corp.— Solvent Extraction, EPA RREL, series

includes Technology Evaluation Vol. I, 540/5-90/001; Technology Evaluation
Vol. II, EPA/540/5-90/002a, PB90-186503; Application Analysis,
EPA/540/A5-90/002; and Technology Demonstration Summary,
EPA/540/S5-90/002.
EPA, 1990. Solvent Extraction Treatment, Engineering Bulletin, EPA,

EPA, 1993. Terra Kleen Solvent Extraction Technology— Terra Kleen

Response Group, Inc., EPA RREL, Demonstration Bulletin,
EPA/540/MR-94/521.
Raghavan, R., D.H. Dietz, and E. Coles, 1988. Cleaning Excavated Soil
Using Extraction Agents: A State-of-the-Art Review, EPA Releases Control
Branch, Edison, NJ, EPA Report EPA 600/2-89/034.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.420 10/31/00
4-83
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
Port Arthur, TX NA Full-scale 50-tpd refinery 2,575 ppm PCB 90% NA
sludge treatment unit reduction
Conroe, TX NA Oil and grease and aromatic 2,879 ppm PAH 122 ppm PAH NA
priority pollutants
General Refining Transportable B.E.S.T. unit 10,000 ppm Pb,
Savannah, GA NA to treat 4 acidic oily sludge 190 ppm Cu, NA NA
(Superfund) ponds 5 ppm PCBs
Points of Contact:
Michael Gruenfeld EPA RREL FTS 340-6625 GSA Raritan Depot
(201) 321-6625 Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837
Mark Bricka or Danny USAE WES (601) 636-3111 Attn: CEWES-EE-S
Averette 3909 Halls Ferry Road
Laurel Stanley or Mark EPA RREL (513) 569-7863 26 West M.L. King Dr.
Meckes Cincinnati, OH 45268
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.420 10/31/00
4-84
4.21 HIGH TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION
Description: High temperature thermal desorption (HTTD) is a full -scale technology in

which wastes are heated to 320 to 560 ? C (600 to 1,000 ? F) to volatilize
water and organic contaminants. A carrier gas or vacuum system transports
volatilized water and organics to the gas treatment system. HTTD systems
are physical separation processes and are not designed to destroy organics.
Bed temperatures and typical residenc e times will cause selected
contaminants to volatilize but not be oxidized.
4-21 TYPICAL HIGH TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION PROCESS
HTTD is frequently used in combination with incineration,

solidification/stabilization, or dechlorination, depending upon site -specific
conditions.
The technology has proven it can produce a final contaminant concentration

level below 5 mg/kg for the target contaminants identified.
Applicability: The target contaminants are SVOCs, PAHs, PCBs, and pesticides; however, HTTD
systems have varying degrees of effectiveness against the full spectrum of organic
contaminants. VOCs and fuels also may be treated, but treatment may be less cost -
effective. Volatile metals may be removed by HTTD systems. The presence of
chlorine can affect the volatilization of some metals, such as lead. The process is
applicable for the separation of organics from refinery wastes, coal tar wastes,
wood-treating wastes, creosote -contaminated soils, hydrocarbon-contaminated soils,
mixed (radioactive and hazardous) wastes, synthetic rubber processing wastes, and
paint wastes.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.421 10/31/00
4-85
include:
· Feed particle size greater th an 2 inches can impact applicability or cost

at specific sites.
· Dewatering may be necessary to reduce the amount of energy required

to heat the soil.
· Highly abrasive feed can potentially damage the processor unit.
· Clay and silty soils and high humic content soils increase reaction time
as a result of binding of contaminants.
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge). In addition to
identifying soil contaminants and their concentrations, information necessary
for engineering thermal systems to specific applications include soil moisture
content and classification (no sieve analysis is necessary), determination of
boiling points for various compo unds to be removed, and treatability tests to
determine the efficiency of thermal desorption for removing various
contaminants at various temperatures and residence times.
Performance
Data: There are at least five vendors actively promoting the technolog y, and most of
the hardware components for HTTD systems are readily available off the
shelf. The time to complete cleanup of the “standard” 18,200 -metric ton
(20,000-ton) site using HTTD is just over 4 months.
Cost: Approximate overall cost is between $ 110 and $330 per metric ton ($100 and
$300 per ton).
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.421 10/31/00
4-86
4.21 HIGH TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION
References: Anderson, W.C., 1993. Innovative Site Remediation Technology — Thermal

Desorption, American Academy of Environmental Engineers.
EPA, 1988. Shirco— Infrared Incineration, EPA RREL, series includes

Technology Evaluation— Peake Oil, EPA/540/5-88/002a; Technology
Evaluation— Rose Township, EPA/540/5-89/007a; Technology Evaluation—
Rose Township Vol. II, EPA/540/5-89/007b, PB89-167910; Applications
Analysis, EPA/540/S5-89/010; Technology Demons tration Summary,
EPA/540/S5-89/007; Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/M5-88/002; and
Technology Evaluation Report — Peake Oil Vol. II, EPA/540/5-88/002B,
PB89-116024.
EPA, 1989. American Combustion— Oxygen Enhanced Incineration, EPA

RREL, series includes Technology Evaluation, EPA/540/5-89/008;
Summary, EPA/540/S5-89/008; and Demonstration Bulletin,
EPA/540/M5-89/008.
EPA, 1992. Ogden Circulating Bed Combustor— McCall Superfund Site,

EPA RREL, Technology Evaluation, EPA/540/R-92/001; and Demonstration
EPA, 1993. X-TRAX Model 100 Thermal Desorption System Chemical

Waste Management, EPA RREL, Demonstration Bulletin,
EPA/540/MR-93/502.
EPA, 1994. Thermal Desorption Treatment, Engineering Bulletin, EPA,

Johnson, N.P., J.W. Noland, and P.J. Marks, 1987. Bench-Scale

Investigation of Low Temperature Thermal Stripping of Volatile Organic
Compounds From Various Soil Types: Technical Report, AMXTH-TE-CR-
87124, USATHAMA.
Marks, P.J. and J.W. Noland, 1986. Economic Evaluation of Low

Temperature Thermal Stripping of Volatile Organic Compounds from Soil,
Technical Report, AMXTH-TE-CR-86085, USATHAMA.
McDevitt, N.P., J.W. Noland, and P.J. Marks, 1986. Bench-Scale

Investigation of Air Stripping of Volatile Organic Compounds from Soil:
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.421 10/31/00
4-87
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
Alaskan Battery Hugh Masters Pilot scale, featuring gravity2,280-10,374 ppm 15-2,541 ppm $182/metric ton
Enterprises EPA RREL separation and particle sizelead lead ($165/ton)
Superfund Site, 2890 Woodbridge Ave. classification.
Fairbanks, AK Building 10
Edison, NJ
Escambia Wood Terri Richardson Pilot scale, featuring 550-1,700 ppm 45 ppm $151/metric ton
Treating Company EPA RREL particle size classification PAHs PAHs, ($137/ton)
Superfund Site, 26 West M.L. King Dr. and surfactant addition. 48-210 ppm PCP 3 ppm PCPs (projected)
Pensacola, FL Cincinnati, OH
Points of Contact:
Michael Gruenfeld EPA RREL FTS 340-6625 2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Releases Control (908) 321-6625 Building 10 (MS-104)
Branch Edison, NJ 08831
Daniel E. Averett USAE-WES (601) 634-3959 Attn: CEWES-EE-S
Paul dePercin EPA RREL (513) 569-7797 26 West M.L. King Dr.
Demonstration Section Cincinnati, OH 45267
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.421 10/31/00
4-88
4.22 HOT GAS DECONTAMINATION
Description: The process involves raising the temperature of the contaminated equipment
or material to 260 ? C (500 ? F) for a specified period of time. The gas
effluent from the material is treated in an afterburner system to destroy all
volatilized contaminants. The method eliminates a waste that currently is
stockpiled and requires disposal as a hazardous material. This method will
permit reuse or disposal of scrap as nonhazardous material. Consideration is
being given to applying the hot gases to explosives -contaminated
underground piping in situ.
Hot gas decontamination can also be used for decontamination of explosives -

contaminated masonry or metallic structures. The method involves sealing
and insulating the structures, heating with hot gas stream to 260 ? C (500 ? F)
for a prescribed period of time, volatilizing the explosive contaminants, and
destroying them in an afterburner. Operating conditions are site -specific.
Contaminants are completely destroyed.
4-22 TYPICAL PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM FOR HOT GAS DECONTAMINATION OF

EXPLOSIVES-CONTAMINATED EQUIPMENT
Applicability: The method is applicable for process equipment requiring decontamination for
reuse. It is also applicable for explosive items, such as mines and shells, being
demilitarized (after removal of explosives) or scrap material contaminated with
explosives.
The method can also be used for buildings or structures associated with
ammunition plants, arsenals, and depots involved in the manufacture,
processing, loading, and storage of py rotechnics, explosives, and propellants.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.422 10/31/00
4-89
process:
· The costs of this method are higher than open burning.
· Flash chamber design must take into consideration p ossible explosions

from improperly demilitarized mines or shells.
· The rate at which equipment or material can be decontaminated is

slower than that for open burning.
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge). Specific data required
to evaluate the potential use of hot gas decontamination include:
· Types of explosives present.

· Weight of the explosives present.
Performance
Data: Items decontamin ated for 6 hours at a minimum temperature of 260 ? C
(500 ? F) were found to be safe for public release as scrap. TNT destruction
rates of 99.99% can be achieved.
Cost: The cost of the decontamination will vary with the application, depending
upon the size and geometry of the equipment or material to be
decontaminated and the temperature and holding time required for the
decontamination. No specific cost analysis has been completed.
References: Maumee Research and Engineering, April 1986. Design Support for a Hot
Gas Decontamination System for Explosives-Contaminated Buildings.
McNeill, W., et al., October 1987. Pilot Plant Testing of Hot Gas Building
Decontamination Process - Final Report, USATHAMA Report AMXTH-
TE-CR-87130.
USATHAMA, July 1990. Pilot Test of Hot Gas Decontamination of

Explosives-Contaminated Equipment at Hawthorne Army Ammunition Plant
(HWAAP), Hawthorne, NV, Final Technical Report, USATHAMA Report
CETHA-TE-CR-90036.
Woodland, L.R., et al., August 1987. Pilot Testing of Caustic Spray/Hot

Gas Building Decontamination Process, USATHAMA Report AMHTH-TE-
CR-87112.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.422 10/31/00
4-90
4.22 HOT GAS DECONTAMINATION
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
HWAAP Erik B. Hangeland Successful pilot-scale 99.99%
Hawthorne, NV USAEC ETD demonstration NA removal of NA
APG, MD 21010 TNT
(410) 671-2054
Points of Contact:
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.422 10/31/00
4-91
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.422 10/31/00
4-92
4.23 INCINERATION
Description: High temperatures, 870 to 1,200 ? C (1,400 to 2,200 ? F), are used to
volatilize and combust (in the presenc e of oxygen) halogenated and other
refractory organics in hazardous wastes. The destruction and removal
efficiency (DRE) for properly operated incinerators exceeds the 99.99%
requirement for hazardous waste and can be operated to meet the 99.9999%
requirement for PCBs and dioxins.
4-23 TYPICAL MOBILE/TRANSPORTABLE INCINERATION PROCESS
Commercial incinerator designs are rotary kilns, equipped with an

afterburner, a quench, and an air pollution control system. The rotary kiln is a
refractory-lined, slightly-inclined, rotating cylinder that serves as a
combustion chamber and operates at temperatures up to 980 ? C (1,800 ? F).
An experimental unit, the circulating fluidized bed (CFB), uses high-velocity

air to circulate and suspend the waste particles in a combustion loop and
operates at temperatures up to 870 ? C (1,600 ? F). Another experimental unit,
the infrared unit uses electrical resistance heating elements or indirect -fired
radiant U-tubes to heat material passing through the chamber on a conveyor
belt and operates at temperatures up to 870 ? C (1,600 ? F).
Incinerator off-gas requires treatment by an air pollution-control system to

remove particulates and neutralize and remove acid gases (HCl, NO x, and
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.423 10/31/00
4-93
SOx). Baghouses, venturi scrubbers, and wet electrostatic precipitators

remove particulates; packed -bed scrubbers and spray driers remove acid
gases. Limestone or caustic solution added to the combustor loop removes
acid gases in the CFB.
Incineration, primarily off-site, has been selected or used as the remedial

action at more than 150 Superfund sites. Incineration is subject to a series of
technology -specific regulations, including the following federal requirements:
CAA (air emissions), TSCA (PCB treatment and disposal), RCRA
(hazardous waste generation, treatment, storage, and disposal), NPDES
(discharge to surface waters), and NCA (noise).
Applicability: Incineration is used to remediate soils contaminated with explosives and hazardous
wastes, particularly chlorinated hydrocarbons, PCBs, and dioxins.
include:
· Only one off-site incinerator is permitted to burn PCBs and dioxins.
· There are specific feed size and materials handling requirements that
can impact applicability or cost at specific sites.
· Heavy metals can produce a bottom ash that requires stabilization.
· Volatile heavy metals, including lead, cadmium, mercury, and arsenic,

leave the combustion unit with the flue gases and require the
installation of gas cleaning systems for removal.
· Metals can react with other elements in the feed stream, such as
chlorine or sulfur, forming more volatile and toxic compounds than the
original species. Such compounds are likely to be short -lived reaction
intermediates that can be destroyed in a caustic quench.
· Sodium and potassium form low melting point ashes that can attack
the brick lining and form a sticky particulate that fouls gas ducts.
for engineering ther mal systems to specific applications includes soil moisture
content and classification (no sieve analysis is necessary), the soil fusion
temperature, and the soil heating value.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.423 10/31/00
4-94
4.23 INCINERATION
Performance
Data: If an off-site incinerator is used, the potential risk of transporting the
hazardous waste through the community must be considered. Approximately
20 commercial RCRA-permitted hazardous waste incinerators and
approximately 10 transportable high temperature units are operating. The
commercial units are large capacity rotary kilns with afterburners and
sophisticated air pollution control systems.
Cost: Soil treatment costs at off -site incinerators range from $220 to $1,100 per
metric ton ($200 to $1,000 per ton) of soil, including all project costs.
Mobile units that can be operated on -site will reduce soil transportation costs.
Soils contaminated with PCBs or dioxins cost $1,650 to $6,600 per metric
ton ($1,500 to $6,000 per ton) to incinerate.
References: EPA, 1987. Incineration of Hazardous Waste, Fact Sheet, EPA, Office of
Solid Waste, Washington, DC, EPA/530-SW-88-018.
EPA, 1988. Experience in Incineration Applicable to Superfund Site

Remediation, EPA, RREL and Center for Environmental Research
Information, EPA/625/9-88/008.
EPA, 1988. Hazardous Waste Incineration: Questions and Answers, EPA,

Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC, EPA/530/SW-88/018.
EPA, 1990. Mobile/Transportable Incineration Treatment, Engineering

Bulletin, EPA, OERR and ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-90/014.
EPA, 1988. Shirco— Infrared Incineration, EPA RREL, series includes

Technology Evaluation— Peake Oil, EPA/540/5-88/002a; Technology
Evaluation— Rose Township, EPA/540/5-89/007a; Technology Evaluation—
Rose Township Vol. II, EPA/540/5-89/007b, PB89-167910; Applications
Analysis, EPA/540/S5-89/010; Technology Demonstration Summary,
EPA/540/S5-89/007; Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/ M5-88/002; and
Technology Evaluation Report — Peake Oil Vol. II, EPA/540/5-88/002B,
PB89-116024.
EPA, 1989. American Combustion— Oxygen Enhanced Incineration, EPA

RREL, series include Technology Evaluation, EPA/540/5 -89/008;
Summary, EPA/540/S5-89/008; and Demonstration Bulletin,
EPA/540/M5-89/008.
EPA, 1992. Ogden Circulating Bed Combustor— McCall Superfund Site,

EPA RREL, Technology Evaluation, EPA/540/R-92/001; Demonstration
EPA, 1993. X-TRAX Model 100 Thermal Desorption System Chemical

Waste Management, EPA RREL, Demonstration Bulletin,
EPA/540/MR-93/502.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.423 10/31/00
4-95
Noland, J.W., et al., 1984. Task 2: Incineration Test of Explosives

Contaminated Soils at Savanna Army Depot Activity, Final Report, Savanna
Illinois, USATHAMA Report DRXTH-TE-CR 84277.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.423 10/31/00
4-96
4.23 INCINERATION
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
Peak Oil Site Howard O. Wall Full scale: electric infrared Oil sludge (PCBs $180 to
Tampa, FL EPA RREL mobile incineration unit and lead) $800/metric
26 West M.L. King Dr. NA ton
Cincinnati, OH 45268 ($164-
(513) 569-7691 $730/ton)
Savanna AD Michael G. Cosmos Full scale transportable 1,000 ppm TNT <1 ppm $180/metric
Savanna, IL Roy F. Weston, Inc. incineration system- 75,000 ton
One Weston Way tons of soil ($173/ton)
West Chester, PA 19380 inclusive
(610) 701-7423
Lauder Salvage Michael G. Cosmos Full scale transportable 12,000 ppm PCBs <1 ppm $200/metric
Yard Roy F. Weston, Inc. incineration system ton
Beardstown, IL One Weston Way ($180/ton)
West Chester, PA 19380
(610) 701-7423
Points of Contact:
Donald A. Oberacker EPA RREL FTS 684-7510 26 West M.L. King Dr.
(513) 569-7510 Cincinnati, OH 45268
Joseph McSorley EPA (919) 541-2920 Alexander Dr.
Air & Energy ERL Research Triangle Park, NC 17711
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.423 10/31/00
4-97
4.24 LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION
Description: Low temperature thermal desorption (LTTD) systems are physical separation
processes and are not designed to destroy organics. Wastes are heated to
between 90 and 320 ? C (200 to 600 ? F) to volatilize water and organic
contaminants. A carrier gas or vacuum system transports volatilized water
and organics to the gas treatment system. The bed temperatures and
residence times designed into these systems will volatilize selected
contaminants but will typically not oxidize them. LTTD is a full-scale
technology th at has been proven successful for remediating petroleum
hydrocarbon contamination in all types of soil. Contaminant destruction
efficiencies in the afterburners of these units are greater than 95%. The same
equipment could probably meet stricter requirem ents with minor
modifications, if necessary. Decontaminated soil retains its physical
properties and ability to support biological activity.
4-24 TYPICAL SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF THERMAL DESORPTION PROCESS
Two common thermal desorption designs are the rotary dryer and thermal
screw. Rotary dryers are horizontal cylinders that can be indirect - or direct-
fired. The dryer is normally inclined and rotated. For the thermal screw
units, screw conveyors or hollow au gers are used to transport the medium
through an enclosed trough. Hot oil or steam circulates through the auger to
indirectly heat the medium. All thermal desorption systems require treatment
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.424 10/31/00
4-97
of the off-gas to remove particulates and contaminants. Parti culates are

removed by conventional particulate removal equipment, such as wet
scrubbers or fabric filters. Contaminants are removed through condensation
followed by carbon adsorption, or they are destroyed in a secondary
combustion chamber or a catalytic oxidizer. Most of these units are
transportable.
Applicability: The target contaminant groups for LTTD systems are nonhalogenated VOCs and
fuels. The technology can be used to treat SVOCs at reduced effectiveness.
include:
can impact applicability or cost at specific sites.
· Dewatering may be necessary to achieve acceptable soil moisture

content levels.
· Highly abrasive feed potentially can damage the processor unit.
· Heavy metals in the feed may produce a treated solid residue that
requires stabilization.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Su bsection 2.2.1
content and classification, texture, mercury content, pH, and presence of high
or low volatility compounds.
Performance
Data: Most of the hardware components for LTTD systems are readily available off
the shelf. Many vendors offer LTTD units mounted on a single trailer. Soil
throughput rates are typically 13 to 18 metric tons (15 to 20 tons) per hour
for sandy soils and less than 6 metric tons (7 tons) per hour for clay soils
when more than 10% of the material passes a 200 -mesh screen. Units with
capacities ranging from 23 to 46 metric tons (25 to 50 tons) per hour require
four or five trailers for transport and 2 days for setup.
All ex situ soil thermal treatment systems employ similar feed systems
consisting of a screening device to separate and remove materials g reater than
5 centimeters (2 inches), a belt conveyor to move the screened soil from the
screen to the first thermal treatment chamber, and a weight belt to measure
soil mass. Occasionally, augers are used rather than belt conveyors, but
either type of system requires daily maintenance and is subject to failures that
shut the system down. Soil conveyors in large systems seem more prone to
failure than those in smaller systems. Size reduction equipment can be
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.424 10/31/00
4-98
incorporated into the feed system, but its ins tallation is usually avoided to
minimize shutdown as a result of equipment failure.
Soil storage piles and feed equipment are generally covered as protection
from rain to minimize soil moisture content and material handling problems.
Soils and sediments with water contents greater than 20 to 25% may require
the installation of a dryer in the feed system to reduce the energy cost to heat
the soil. Some volatilization of contaminants occurs in the dryer, and the
gases are routed to a thermal treatment ch amber.
Cost: Rates charged to remediate petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated soil range

from $45 to $110 per metric ton ($40 to $100 per ton) of soil. Costs for
remediating clay soils may approach $220 per metric ton ($200 per ton)
because of the reduced throughout resulting from the small soil particle size.
Of this cost, approximately $20 to $35 per metric ton ($15 to $30 per ton) is
required for direct operating costs such as utility consumption and repair.
Vendors typically perform preventive mainten ance, such as lubrication, on a
daily basis. Unit transportation and setup costs are typically $3.30 to $5.50
per metric ton ($3 to $5 per ton), seldom exceeding a mobilization cost of
$200,000. Excavation of contaminated soil and the replacement of the
treated soil costs approximately $6 to $11 per metric ton ($5 to $10 per ton).
References: EPA, 1992. A Citizen's Guide to Thermal Desorption, EPA, OSWER,

Washington, DC, EPA/542/F-92/006.
EPA, 1992. Low Temperature Thermal Treatment (LT 3®) System,

Demonstration Bulletin, Washington, DC, EPA/540/MR-92/019.
EPA, 1992. Roy F. Weston, Inc.— Low Temperature Thermal Treatment

(LT3) System, EPA RREL, Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/MR-92/019;
and Applications Analysis, EPA/540/AR-92/019.
EPA, 1993. Low Temperature Thermal Aeration (LTTA) System, Canonie

Environmental Services, Inc., EPA RREL, Demonstration Bulletin,
EPA/540/MR-93/504.
EPA, 1994. Thermal Desorption System, Clean Berkshires, Inc., EPA

RREL, Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/MR-94/507; and Capsule,
EPA/540/R-94/507a.
EPA, 1994. Thermal Desorption Treatment, Engineering Bulletin,

EPA/540/5-94/501.
EPA, 1994. Thermal Desorption Unit, Eco Logic International, Inc., EPA
RREL, Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/MR-94/504.
Lighty, J., et al., 1987. The Cleanup of Contaminated Soil by Thermal

Desorption, Presented at Second International Conference on New Frontiers
for Hazardous Waste Management, EPA Report EPA/600/9-87/018.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.424 10/31/00
4-99
U.S. Army, August 1990. The Low Temperature Thermal Stripping Process,
USATHAMA, APG, MD, USATHAMA Cir. 200-1-5.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.424 10/31/00
4-100
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
Tinker AFB Michael G. Cosmos Low temperature thermal 99.9% BTEX $410 to
3 3
Oklahoma City, Roy F. Weston, Inc. treatment (LT ) - 3,000 yd removal $798/metric
OK One Weston Way treated - VOCs, SVOCs, ton
West Chester, PA 19380 TP-4 NA ($373-
(610) 701-7423 $725/ton)
based on soil
moisture
Letterkenny AD Michael G. Cosmos USAEC's Holo-Flite screw Various VOCs up 99.95% VOC $81 to
Chambersburg, Roy F. Weston, Inc. thermal processor to 20,000 ppm removal $176/metric
PA One Weston Way ton
West Chester, PA 19380 ($74-$160/ton)
(610) 701-7423 + $410 to
$798/metric
ton ($87-
$184/ton) soil
for gas treat-
ment
3
Letterkenny AD Michael G. Cosmos LT - TCE, DCE, PCE, Various VOCs up Up to 1.8 ppm $410 to
Chambersburg, Roy F. Weston, Inc. xylene to 27,000 ppm $798/metric
PA One Weston Way ton
West Chester, PA 19380 ($373-
(610) 701-7423 $725/ton)
based on soil
moisture
Points of Contact:
Michael Gruenfeld EPA RREL (908) 321-6625 2890 Woodbridge Ave.
Releases Control Building 10 (MS-104)
Branch Edison, NJ 08837
Paul dePercin EPA (513) 569-7797 26 West M.L. King Dr.
Daniel E. Averett USAE-WES (601) 634-3959 Attn: CEWES-EE-S
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.424 10/31/00
4-101
4.25 OPEN BURN/OPEN DETONATION
Description: Open burn (OB) and open detonation (OD) operations are conducted to
destroy unserviceable, unstable, or unusable munitions and explosives
materials. In OB operations, explosives or munitions are destroyed by self-
sustained combustion, which is ignited by an external source, such as flame,
heat, or a detonation wave (that does not result in a detonation). In OD
operations, detonatable explosives and munitions are destroyed by a
detonation, which is initiated by the detonation of a disposal charge.

propellants. OB areas must be able to withstand accidental detonation of any
or all explosives being destroyed, unless the operating OB technicians
recognize that the characteristics of the materials involved are such that
orderly burning without detonation can be ensured. Personnel with this type
of knowledge must be consulted before any attempt is made at OB disposal,
4-25 TYPICAL OPEN BURNING PAN AND CAGE

general, electric systems are preferable because they provide better control
over the timing of the initiation. In an electric system, electric current heats a
bridge wire, which ignites a primary explosive or pyrotechnic, which, in turn,
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.425 10/31/00
4-101
ignites or detonates the material slated to be burned or detonated. If

necessary, safety fuses, which consists of propellants wrapped in plastic
weather stripping, are used to initiate the burn or detonation.
Applicability: OB/OD can be used to destroy unserviceable, unstable, or unusable munitions and
explosive materials.
process:
· Minimum distance requirements for safety purposes mean substantial

space is required.
· OB/OD operations emissions are difficult to capture for treatment and

may not be permitted in areas with emissions limitations.
· OB/OD operations require that prevailing winds carry sparks, flame,

smoke, and toxic fumes away from neighboring facilities. OB/OD
operations are never conducted during sand, snow, or electrical storms
strong enough to produce static electricity, which might cause
premature detonation.
· In addition, with growing OB/OD restriction, DOD's ability to treat

energetic wastes is diminishing and energetics disposal may be
eliminated.
to evaluate the potential use of OB/OD operations include:
· Location plan for proposed OB/OD operations showing adjacent land

uses and safety buffer zone.
· Emissions requirements for the geographic area of the OB/OD

operation.
Performance
Data: Several federal agencies are pursuing new technologies in this area with DOE
(molten salt technology) and the U.S. Army Construction Engineering
Research Laboratories (CERL) (preliminary investigations) being the most
active.
References: Teer, R.G., R.E. Brown, and H.E. Sarvis, June 1993. Status of RCRA
Permitting of Open Burning and Open Detonation of Explosive Wastes,
Presented at Air and Waste Management Association Conference, 86th
Annual Meeting and Exposition, Denver, CO.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.425 10/31/00
4-102
USAF, 1990. Explosives Safety Standards, Air Force Regulation 127-100.
USAMC (U.S. Army Materiel Command), 1985. Explosives Safety Manual,

AMC-R, 385-100.
Points of Contact:
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.425 10/31/00
4-103
Description: Open burn (OB) and open detonation (OD) operations are conducted to
destroy unserviceable, unstable, or unusable munitions and explosives
materials. In OB operations, explosives or munitions are destroyed by self-
sustained combustion, which is ignited by an external source, such as flame,
heat, or a detonation wave (that does not result in a detonation). In OD
operations, detonatable explosives and munitions are destroyed by a
detonation, which is initiated by the detonation of a disposal charge.

propellants. OB areas must be able to withstand accidental detonation of any
or all explosives being destroyed, unless the operating OB technicians
recognize that the characteristics of the materials involved are such that
orderly burning without detonation can be ensured. Personnel with this type
of knowledge must be consulted before any attempt is made at OB disposal,
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.425 10/31/00
4-104
4-25 TYPICAL OPEN BURNING PAN AND CAGE

general, electric systems are preferable because they provide better control
over the timing of the initiation. In an electric system, electric current heats a
bridge wire, which ignites a primary explosive or pyrotechnic, which, in turn,
ignites or detonates the material slated to be burned or detonated. If
necessary, safety fuses, which consists of propellants wrapped in plastic
weather stripping, are used to initiate the burn or detonation.
Applicability: OB/OD can be used to destroy unserviceable, unstable, or unusable munitions and
explosive materials.
process:
· Minimum distance requirements for safety purposes mean substantial

space is required.
· OB/OD operations emissions are difficult to capture for treatment and

may not be permitted in areas with emissions limitations.
· OB/OD operations require that prevailing winds carry sparks, flame,
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.425 10/31/00
4-102
smoke, and toxic fumes away from neighboring facilities. OB/OD

operations are never conducted during sand, snow, or electrical storms
strong enough to produce static electricity, which might cause
premature detonation.
· In addition, with growing OB/OD restriction, DOD's ability to treat

energetic wastes is diminishing and energetics disposal may be
eliminated.
to evaluate the potential use of OB/OD operations include:
· Location plan for proposed OB/OD operations showing adjacent land

uses and safety buffer zone.
· Emissions requirements for the geographic area of the OB/OD

operation.
Performance
Data: Several federal agencies are pursuing new technologies in this area with DOE
(molten salt technology) and the U.S. Army Construction Engineering
Research Laboratories (CERL) (preliminary investigations) being the most
active.
References: Teer, R.G., R.E. Brown, and H.E. Sarvis, June 1993. Status of RCRA
Permitting of Open Burning and Open Detonation of Explosive Wastes,
Presented at Air and Waste Management Association Conference, 86th
Annual Meeting and Exposition, Denver, CO.
USAMC (U.S. Army Materiel Command), 1985. Explosives Safety Manual,

AMC-R, 385-100.
Points of Contact:
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.425 10/31/00
4-103
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.425 10/31/00
4-104
4.26 PYROLYSIS
Description: Pyrolysis is formally defined as chemical decomposition induced in organic

materials by heat in the absence of oxygen. In practice, it is not possible to
achieve a completely oxygen-free atmosphere; actual pyrolytic systems are
operated with less than stoichiometric quantities of oxygen. Because some
oxygen will be present in any pyrolytic system, nominal oxidation will occur.
If volatile or semivolatile materials are present in the waste, thermal
desorption will also occur.
4-26 TYPICAL PYROLYSIS PROCESS

Pyrolysis transforms hazardous organic materials into gaseous components,
small quantities of liquid, and a solid residue (coke) containing fixed carbon
and ash. Pyrolysis of organic materials produce combustible gases, including
carbon monoxide, hydrogen and methane, and other hydrocarbons. If the off-
gases are cooled, liquids condense producing an oil/tar residue and
contaminated water. Pyrolysis typically occurs under pressure and at
operating temperatures above 430 ? C (800 ? F). The pyrolysis gases require
further treatment. The off-gases may be treated in a secondary combustion
chamber, flared, and partially condensed. Particulate removal equipment
such as fabric filters or wet scrubbers are also required.
Pyrolysis is an emerging technology. Although the basic concepts of the

process have been validated, the performance data for an emerging
technology have not been evaluated according to methods approved by EPA
and adhering to EPA quality assurance/quality control standards.
Performance data are currently available only for vendors. Also, existing
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.426 10/31/00
4-105
data are limited in scope and quantity/quality and are frequently of a

proprietary nature.
Applicability: The target contaminant groups for pyrolysis are SVOCs and pesticides. The
process is applicable for the separation of organics from refinery wastes, coal tar
wastes, wood-treating wastes, creosote-contaminated soils, hydrocarbon-
contaminated soils, mixed (radioactive and hazardous) wastes, synthetic rubber
processing wastes, and paint waste.
Pyrolysis systems may be applicable to a number or organic materials that

"crack" or undergo a chemical decomposition in the presence of heat.
Pyrolysis has shown promise in treating organic contaminants in soils and
oily sludges. Chemical contaminants for which treatment data exist include
PCBs, dioxins, PAHs, and many other organics. Pyrolysis is not effective in
either destroying or physically separating inorganics from the contaminated
medium. Volatile metals may be removed as a result of the higher
temperatures associated with the process but are similarly not destroyed.
include:
impact applicability or cost at specific sites.
· The technology requires drying of the soil to achieve a low soil

moisture content (<1%).
· Highly abrasive feed can potentially damage the processor unit.
· High moisture content increases treatment costs.
· Treated media containing heavy metals may require stabilization.
content and classification (no sieve analysis is necessary), and the soil fusion
temperature.
Performance
Data: Limited performance data are available for pyrolytic systems treating
hazardous wastes containing PCBs, dioxins, and other organics. The quality
of this information has not been determined. These data are included as a
general indication of the performance of pyrolysis equipment and may not be
directly transferrable to a specific Superfund site. Site characterization and
treatability studies are essential in further refining and screening the pyrolysis
technology.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.426 10/31/00
4-106
4.26 PYROLYSIS
Cost: The overall cost for remediating approximately 18,200 metric tons (20,000
tons) of contaminated media is expected to be approximately $330 per metric
ton ($300 per ton).
References: EPA, 1992. AOSTRA-SoilTech Anaerobic Thermal Processor: Wide Beach

Development Site, Demonstration Bulletin, EPA, ORD, Washington, DC,
EPA/540/MR-92/008.
EPA, 1992. Pyrolysis Treatment, Engineering Bulletin, EPA, OERR,

Washington, DC, EPA/540/S-92/010.
EPA, 1992. SoilTech Anaerobic Thermal Processor: Outboard Marine

Corporation Site, Demonstration Bulletin, EPA, ORD, Washington, DC,
EPA/540/MR-92/078.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.426 10/31/00
4-107
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
HT-V TDI Thermal Dynamics Mobile thermal desorption Dioxin 99.99% NA
unit with pyrolytic mode removal
Deutsche Desorb and combust Polycyclic 99.77%
Babcock Anlagen NA volatiles aromatics removal NA
AG
Wide Beach SoilTech, Inc. Anaerobic thermal processor 5,000 ppm PCB <2 ppm $290/metric ton
Superfund Site (ATP), indirectly heated ($265/ton)
NY rotary kiln
Points of Contact:
Donald Oberacker EPA RREL (513) 569-7510 26 West M.L. King Dr.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.426 10/31/00
4-108
4.27 VITRIFICATION (EX SITU)
Description: Ex situ vitrification is designed to encapsulate inorganic contaminants, rather

than reduce contaminant concentrations. Destruction of the organic
contaminants present in the treated media, however, does occur because of
temperatures achieved in the process.
4.27 TYPICAL EX SITU VITRIFICATION PROCESS BLOCK FLOW
Ex situ vitrification is effective in reducing the mobility of the contaminated

wastes within the media. The vitrified mass has high strength and resistance
to leaching. The strength properties of material vitrified by different systems
can vary widely. Systems in which the vitrified mass is quench-cooled may
produce a more easily fractured mass than systems in which the mass is
allowed to air cool. Systems in which fluxing agents are used will also have
different strength properties. The composition of the soil that is vitrified may
also affect the strength properties of the vitrified material.
Ex situ vitrification is normally considered a standalone technology; however,

its potential for use in treating the solid residuals from other technologies,
such as incinerator ash, is receiving increasing attention.
Applicability: Ex situ vitrification is applicable to the full range of contaminant groups, but
inorganics is the target contaminant group. Metals, radionuclides, etc. are
encapsulated in the vitrified mass, resisting leaching for geologic time periods.
include:
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.427 10/31/00
4-109
· Organic off-gases need to be controlled. Some volatile heavy metal

and radioactive contaminants may volatilize and require treatment in
the off-gas system.
· Use or disposal of the resultant vitrified slag is required.
content and classification (no sieve analysis is necessary), and the soil fusion
temperature.
Performance
Data: An EPA SITE program demonstration of plasma arc vitrification was
conducted in 1991 at DOE's Component Development and Integration facility
in Butte, Montana. During the demonstration, the furnace processed
approximately 1,820 kilograms (4,000 pounds) of waste. The waste
consisted of soil with heavy metals from the Silver Bow Creek Superfund
site, spiked with 28,000-ppm zinc oxide and 1,000-ppm hexachlorobenzene
and mixed in a 90-to-10 weight ratio with No. 2 diesel oil.
DOE is currently developing a full-scale prototype of a fixed hearth DC

plasma torch process that will convert full drums of waste materials directly
to an enhanced waste form in a one step process. An arc melter vitrification
process exists but requires engineering development.
Cost: Approximate overall cost is $770 per metric ton ($700 per ton). Ex situ
vitrification is a relatively complex, high-energy technology requiring a high
degree of specialized skill and training.
References: Circeo, Louis J., Ph.D., 1991. Destruction and Vitrification of Asbestos
Using Plasma Arc Technology, Georgia Institute of Technology for
USACERL, Champaign, IL.
DOE, undated. Technology Name: Arc Melter Vitrification, Technology

Reference No.: ID-132011.
DOE, 1993. Technology Name: Arc Melter Vitrification, Technology

Reference No.: ID-132010.
DOE, 1993. Technology Name: Fixed Hearth Plasma Torch Process,

Technology Information Profile (Rev. 2) for ProTech, DOE ProTech
Database, TTP Reference No.: PE-021202.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.427 10/31/00
4-110
4.27 VITRIFICATION
EPA, 1992. Babcock and Wilcox— Cyclone Furnace Vitrification, EPA

RREL, series includes Technology Evaluation Vol. I, EPA/540/R-92/017A,
PB92-222215; Technology Evaluation Vol. II, EPA/540/R-92/017B,
PB92-222223; Applications Analysis, EPA/540/AR-92/017, PB93-122315;
Technology Demonstration Summary, EPA/540/SR-92/017; and
Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/MR-92/011.
EPA, 1993. Babcock and Wilcox— Cyclone Furnace Vitrification, EPA

RREL, Emerging Tech., Bulletin, EPA/540/P-92/010; Emerging Tech.
Report, EPA/540/R-93/507, PB93-163038; Emerging Tech. Summary,
EPA/540/SR-93/507.
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
DOE Laurel Staley Heavy metal waste fed 28,000 ppm Meets TCLP $2,000/metr
Butte, MT EPA RREL into plasma arc zinc oxide ic ton
26 West M.L. King Dr. centrifugal treatment unit. 1,000 ppm ($1,816/ton)
Cincinnati, OH 45268 hexachloro-
(513) 569-7863 benzene
Fax: (513) 569-7620
Babcock & Laurel Staley Wastes containing heavy TCLP TCLP $495 to
Wilcox, Alliance EPA RREL metals and organic 49.9 ppm Cd <0.12 ppm Cd $605/ton
Research Center 26 West M.L. King Dr. compounds fed into a 2.67 ppm Cr 0.22 ppm Cr ($450 to
Alliance, OH Cincinnati, OH 45268 cyclone furnace. Pilot 97.1 ppm Pb <0.31 ppm Pb $550/ton)
(513) 569-7863 scale. >99.99% DRE for
Fax: (513) 569-7620 anthracene and
dimethylphthalate
HRD Facility Marta Richards Wastes containing heavy 54,000 ppm Pb TCLP $220 to
Monaca, PA EPA RREL metals and organic 410 ppm Cd 0.474 ppm As $1,020/metr
26 West M.L. King Dr. compounds fed into a hot 5,200 ppm As 0.175 ppm Ba ic ton
Cincinnati, OH 45268 reducing atmosphere. 860 ppm Ba <0.05 ppm Cd ($200 to
88 ppm Cr <0.06 ppm Cr $930/ton)
<0.33 ppm Pb
Points of Contact:
Jaffer Mohiuddin DOE (301) 903-7965 EM-552, Trevion II
Randy Parker EPA RREL (513) 569-7271 26 West M.L. King Dr.
Hany H. Zaghloul, P.E. USACE CERL (217) 373-7249 P.O. Box 9005
(217) 352-6511 Champaign, IL 61826-9005
(800) USA-CERL
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.427 10/31/00
4-111
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.427 10/31/00
4-112
4.28 EXCAVATION, RETRIEVAL, AND OFF-SITE DISPOSAL
Description: Contaminated material is removed and transported to permitted off-site

treatment and/or disposal facilities. Some pretreatment of the contaminated
media usually is required in order to meet land disposal restrictions.
4-28 TYPICAL CONTAMINATED SOIL EXCAVATION DIAGRAM
Applicability: Excavation and off-site disposal is applicable to the complete range of contaminant
groups with no particular target group. Although excavation and off-site disposal
alleviates the contaminant problem at the site, it does not treat the contaminants.
include:
· Generation of fugitive emissions may be a problem during operations.
· The distance from the contaminated site to the nearest disposal facility
will affect cost.
· Depth and composition of the media requiring excavation must be

considered.
· Transportation of the soil through populated areas may affect

community acceptability.
· Disposal options for certain waste (e.g., mixed waste or transuranic

waste) may be limited. There is currently only one licensed disposal
facility for radioactive and mixed waste in the United States.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.428 10/31/00
4-113
OTHER SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge).
The type of contaminant and its concentration will impact off-site disposal
requirements. Soil characterization as dictated by land disposal restrictions
(LDRs) are required. Most hazardous wastes must be treated to meet either
RCRA or non-RCRA treatment standards prior to land disposal. Radioactive
wastes would have to meet disposal facility waste form requirements based
on waste classification.
Performance
Data: Excavation and off-site disposal is a well proven and readily implementable
technology. Prior to 1984, excavation and off-site disposal was the most
common method for cleaning up hazardous waste sites. Excavation is the
initial component in all ex situ treatments. As a consequence, the remediation
consulting community is very familiar with this option.
The excavation of 18,200 metric tons (20,000 tons) of contaminated soil

would require about 2 months. Disposal of the contaminated media is
dependent upon the availability of adequate containers to transport the
hazardous waste to a RCRA-permitted facility.
CERCLA includes a statutory preference for treatment of contaminants, and

excavation and off-site disposal is now less acceptable than in the past. The
disposal of hazardous wastes is governed by RCRA (40 CFR Parts 261-265),
and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulates the transport of
hazardous materials (49 CFR Parts 172-179, 49 CFR Part 1387, and DOT-E
8876).
DOE has demonstrated a cryogenic retrieval of buried waste system, which

uses liquid nitrogen (LN2) to freeze soil and buried waste to reduce the spread
of contamination while the buried material is retrieved with a series of
remotely operated tools. Other excavation/retrieval systems that DOE is
currently developing include a remote excavation system, a hydraulic impact
end effector, and a high pressure waterjet dislodging and conveyance end
effector using confined sluicing.
Cost: Cost estimates for excavation and disposal range from $300 to $510 per
metric ton ($270 to $460 per ton) depending on the nature of hazardous
materials and methods of excavation. These estimates include
excavation/removal, transportation, and disposal at a RCRA permitted
facility. Excavation and off-site disposal is a relatively simple process, with
proven procedures. It is a labor-intensive practice with little potential for
further automation. Additional costs may include soil characterization and
treatment to meet land ban requirements.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.428 10/31/00
4-114
4.28 EXCAVATION AND OFF-SITE DISPOSAL
References: Church, H.K., 1981. Excavation Handbook, McGraw Hill Book Co., New
York, NY.
EPA, 1991. Survey of Materials-Handling Technologies Used at Hazardous

Waste Sites, EPA, ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-91/010.
EPA, 1992. McColl Superfund Site — Demonstration of a Trial Excavation,

EPA RREL, series include Technology Evaluation EPA/S40/R-92/015,
PB92-226448; Applications Analysis, EPA/540/AR-92/015; and Technology
Demonstration. Summary, EPA/540/SR/-92/015.
Points of Contact:
Jaffer Mohiuddin DOE Program Manager (301) 903-7965 EM-552, Trevion II
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.428 10/31/00
4-115
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.428 10/31/00
4-116
4.29 NATURAL ATTENUATION
Description: For natural attenuation, natural subsurface processes— such as dilution,

volatilization, biodegradation, adsorption, and chemical reactions with
subsurface materials— are allowed to reduce contaminant concentrations to
acceptable levels. Natural attenuation is not a “technology” per se, and there
is significant debate among technical experts about its use at hazardous waste
sites. Consideration of this option requires modeling and evaluation of
contaminant degradation rates and pathways. The primary objective of site
modeling is to demonstrate that natural processes of contaminant degradation
will reduce contaminant concentrations below regulatory standards before
potential exposure pathways are completed. In addition, sampling and
sample analysis must be conducted throughout the process to confirm that
degradation is proceeding at rates consistent with meeting cleanup objectives.
4-29 TYPICAL MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION DIAGRAM
Natural attenuation is not the same as “no action,” although it often is

perceived as such. CERCLA requires evaluation of a “no action” alternative
but does not require evaluation of natural attenuation. Natural attenuation is
considered in the Superfund program on a case-by-case basis, and guidance
on its use is still evolving. It has been selected at Superfund sites where, for
example, PCBs are strongly sorbed to deep subsurface soils and are not
migrating; where removal of DNAPLs has been determined to be technically
impracticable [Superfund is developing technical impracticability (TI)
guidance]; and where it has been determined that active remedial measures
would be unable to significantly speed remediation time frames. Where
contaminants are expected to remain in place over long periods of time, as in
the first two examples, TI waivers must be obtained. In all cases, extensive
site characterization is required.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.429 10/31/00
4-117
The attitude toward natural attenuation varies among agencies. USAF

carefully evaluates the potential for use of natural attenuation at its sites;
however, EPA accepts its use only in certain special cases.
Applicability: Target contaminants for natural attenuation are nonhalogenated VOCs, SVOCs, and
fuel hydrocarbons. Halogenated VOCs and SVOCs and pesticides may be less
responsive to natural attenuation.
include:
· Data must be collected to determine model input parameters.
· Although commercial services for evaluating natural attenuation are

widely available, the quality of these services varies widely among the
many potential suppliers. Highly skilled modelers are required.
· Intermediate degradation products may be more mobile and more toxic

than the original contaminant.
· Natural attenuation should be used only where there are no impacts on

potential receptors.
· Contaminants may migrate before they are degraded.
· The site may have to be fenced and may not be available for re-use
until contaminant levels are reduced.
· If source material exists, it may have to be removed.
· Some inorganics can be immobilized, such as mercury, but they will

not be degraded.
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge).
Many potential suppliers can perform the modeling, sampling, and sample
analysis required for justifying and monitoring natural attenuation. The
extent of contaminant degradation depends on a variety of parameters, such
as contaminant types and concentrations, temperature, moisture, and
availability of nutrients/electron acceptors (e.g., oxygen and nitrate).
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.429 10/31/00
4-118
When available, information to be obtained during data review includes:
· Soil and groundwater quality data:
- Three-dimensional distribution of residual-, free-, and dissolved-

phase contaminants. The distribution of residual- and free-
phase contaminants will be used to define the dissolved-phase
plume source area.
- Groundwater and soil geochemical data.
- Chemical and physical characteristics of the contaminants.
- Potential for biodegradation of the contaminants.
· Geologic and hydrogeologic data:
- Lithology and stratigraphic relationships.
- Grain-size distribution (sand vs. silt vs. clay).
- Flow gradient.
- Preferential flow paths.
- Interaction between groundwater and surface water.
- Location of potential receptors: groundwater, wells, and surface

water discharge points.
Performance
Data: Natural attenuation has been selected by AFCEE for remediation at 45 USAF
sites.
Cost: There are costs for modeling contamination degradation rates to determine
whether natural attenuation is a feasible remedial alternative. Additional
costs are for subsurface sampling and sample analysis (potentially extensive)
to determine the extent of contamination and confirm contaminant
degradation rates and cleanup status. Skilled labor hours are required to
conduct the modeling, sampling, and analysis. O&M costs would be required
for monitoring to confirm that contaminant migration has not occurred.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.429 10/31/00
4-119
References: Scovazzo, P.E., D. Good, and D.S. Jackson, 1992. "Soil Attenuation: In
Situ Remediation of Inorganics," in Proceedings of the HMC/Superfund
1992, HMCRI, Greenbelt, MD.
Bailey, G.W., and J.L. White, 1970. "Factors Influencing the Adsorption,
Desorption, and Movement of Pesticides in Soil," in Residue Reviews, F.A.
Gunther and J.D. Gunther, Editors, Springer Verlag, pp. 29-92.
Hassett, J.J., J.C. Means, W.L. Banwart, and S.G. Woods, 1980. Sorption
Properties of Sediments and Energy-Related Pollutants, EPA, Washington,
DC, EPA/600/3-80-041.
Hassett, J.J., W.L. Banwart, and R.A. Griffin, 1983. "Correlations of

Compound Properties with Sorption Characteristics of Nonpolar Compounds
by Soils and Sediments; Concepts and Limitations," Environment and Solid
Wastes, pp. 161-178, C.W. Francis and S.I. Auerbach, Editors, Butterworths,
Boston, MA.
Jeng, C.Y., D.H. Chen, and C.L. Yaws, 1992. "Data Compilation for Soil
Sorption Coefficient," Pollution Engineering, 15 June 1992.
Miller, R.N. 1990. "A Field-Scale Investigation of Enhanced Petroleum

Hydrocarbon Biodegradation in the Vadose Zone at Tyndall Air Force Base,
Florida," in Proceedings of the Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic
Chemicals in Groundwater, pp. 339-351, Prevention, Detection, and
Restoration Conference: NWAA/API.
Wiedemeier, T.H., D.C. Downey, J.T. Wilson, D.H. Kampbell, R.N. Miller,
and J.E. Hansen. 1994. Technical Protocol for Implementing the Intrinsic
Remediation (Natural Attenuation) with Long-Term Monitoring Option for
Dissolved-Phase Fuel Contamination in Ground Water, Brooks Air Force
Base, San Antonio, TX.
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
Hill AFB, UT AFCEE/ERT NA NA NA NA
Jerry Hansen
(210) 536-4353
Fax: (210) 536-4339
Eglin AFB, FL AFCEE/ERT NA NA NA NA
Jerry Hansen
(210) 536-4353
Fax: (210) 536-4339
Elmendorf AFB, AFCEE/ERT NA NA NA NA
AL Jerry Hansen
(210) 536-4353
Fax: (210) 536-4339
Note: NA = Not available.
Points of Contact:
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.429 10/31/00
4-120

Capt. Tom Venoge USAF (904) 283-6205 AL-EQW
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.429 10/31/00
4-121
4.30 CO-METABOLIC PROCESSES
Description: Co-metabolism is one form of secondary substrate transformation in which

enzymes produced for primary substrate oxidation are capable of degrading
the secondary substrate fortuitously, even though the secondary substrates do
not afford sufficient energy to sustain the microbial population. An emerging
application involves the injection of water containing dissolved methane and
oxygen into groundwater to enhance methanotrophic biological degradation.
This class of microorganisms can degrade chlorinated solvents, such as vinyl
chloride and TCE, by co-metabolism.
4-30 TYPICAL CO-METABOLIC BIOREMEDIATION SYSTEM (IN SITU) FOR CONTAMINATED

GROUNDWATER
Applicability: Target contaminants for co-metabolic processes are VOCs and SVOCs. The
process may also have some effectiveness in treating fuels and pesticides. As with
other biological treatments, treatability is highly dependent upon the
biodegradability of the contaminants.
include:
· This technology is still under development.
· Where the subsurface is heterogeneous, it is very difficult to circulate

the methane solution throughout every portion of the contaminated
zone. Higher permeability zones are cleaned up much faster because
groundwater flow rates are greater.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.430 10/31/00
4-121
IN SITU WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
· Safety precautions (such as removing all ignition sources in the area)

must be used when handling methane.
(Data Requirements for Groundwater, Surface Water, and Leachate).
Characteristics that should be addressed prior to system design include

aquifer permeability, site hydrology, dissolved oxygen content, pH, and depth,
type, concentration, and biodegradability of contaminants.
Performance
Data: While ex situ bioreactors for methanotrophic TCE biodegradation are being
used in full-scale remediation, in situ application has not yet been
demonstrated at a practical scale. A field demonstration project has been
conducted at DOD's Moffett Naval Air Station, and another is being
conducted at DOE's Savannah River site.
The DOE pilot-scale demonstration was performed at the Savannah River

site's abandoned seepage basin and process sewer line employed for disposal
of solvents used to degrease nuclear fuel target elements. Contamination is
mostly TCE and PCE with concentrations of 10,000 ppb in soil and 1,000
ppb in groundwater. Extensive soil and groundwater monitoring has
demonstrated that when methanotroph densities increased five orders of
magnitude, TCE and PCE concentrations declined to less than 2 ppb.
Cost: For the DOE Savannah River demonstration, capital investment costs were
$150K and 200 manhours for site preparation, setup, and assembly. The
operation is low maintenance, requiring only one technician at 25% time (10
hours per week); other operational costs are for electricity, natural gas, and
equipment maintenance.
O&M costs can be significant because a continuous source of methane

solution must be delivered to the contaminated groundwater.
References: EPA, 1993. In Situ Bioremediation: Biodegradation of Trichloroethylene

and Tetrachloroethylene by Injection of Air and Methane, Innovative
Remedial Technology Information Request Guide.
DOE, 1991. "Modeling Bioremediation Experiments at SRS ID," FY92

Technical Task Description, TTP No. AL 1211-02.
DOE, 1992. "SRS Integrated Demo: Remediation Tasks," FY92 Technical

Task Description, TTP Reference Number: SR 1211-06.
DOE-SR, 1993. Technical Name: Methanotrophic In Situ Bioremediation

Using Methane/Air and Gaseous Nutrient Injection Via Horizontal Wells,
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.430 10/31/00
4-122
4.30 CO-METABOLIC PROCESSES
Technology Information Profile, Rev. 2, DOE ProTech Database, TTP

Reference Number: SR-1211-06.
DOE, 1991. "VOCs in Non-Arid Soils Integration Demonstration, Analysis,

and Evaluation Task," FY92 Technical Task Summary/Description, TTP
Reference Number: SF 2111-01.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.430 10/31/00
4-123
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
Tinker AFB Alison Thomas Ex situ methanotrophic
and ORNL AL/EQW-OL bioreactor
139 Barnes Drive NA NA NA
(904) 283-6303
DOE Savannah Terry C. Hazen Methane and air injected into TCE/PCE $150K cap
River Site Westinghouse Savannah seepage basin by horizontal <2 ppb
Aiken, SC River Co. wells NA
P.O. Box 616
Bldg. 773-42A
Aiken, SC 29802
(803) 725-5178
Bendix CERCLA Lead Predesign- TCE, DCE, DCA,
Corp./Allied NA anaerobic cycle to treat TCE VC
Automotive NA NA
St. Joseph, MI
Points of Contact:
Ronald Lewis EPA RREL (513) 569-7856 26 West M.L. King Dr.
Kurt Gerdes DOE (301) 903-7289 EM-551, Trevion II
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.430 10/31/00
4-124
4.31 NITRATE ENHANCEMENT
Description: Solubilized nitrate is circulated throughout groundwater contamination zones

to provide electron acceptors for biological activity and enhance the rate of
degradation of organic contaminants by naturally occurring microbes.
Development of nitrate enhancement is still at the pilot scale.
4-31 TYPICAL NITRATE-ENHANCED BIOREMEDIATION SYSTEM
This technology enhances the anaerobic biodegradation through the addition

of nitrate. Fuel has been shown to degrade rapidly under aerobic conditions,
but success often is limited by the inability to provide sufficient oxygen to the
contaminated zones as a result of the low water solubility of oxygen. Nitrate
also can serve as an electron receptor and is more soluble in water than
oxygen. The addition of nitrate to an aquifer results in the anaerobic
biodegradation of toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (TEX). The benzene
component of fuel has been found to be recalcitrant under strictly anaerobic
conditions. A mixed oxygen/nitrate system would prove advantageous in that
the addition of nitrate would supplement the demand for oxygen rather than
replace it, allowing for benzene to be biodegraded under microaerophilic
conditions.
Applicability: Target contaminants for the process are nonhalogenated VOCs, SVOCs, and fuels.
Nitrate enhancement has primarily been used to remediate groundwater
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.431 10/31/00
4-125
contaminated by BTEX. Pesticides also should have limited treatability. As with

other biological treatments, this is highly dependent upon the biodegradability of the
contaminants.
include:
· This technology has been found to be effective on only a narrow

spectrum of contaminants to date.

the nitrate solution throughout every portion of the contaminated zone.
Higher permeability zones will be cleaned up much faster because
groundwater flow rates are greater.
· Nitrate has a maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 mg/L. The

location and concentration of nitrate addition would have to consider
this, and downgradient monitoring may be required.
· Many states prohibit nitrate injection into groundwater because nitrate

is regulated through drinking water standards.
Characteristics that should be investigated prior to system design include

Performance
Data: As with other in situ biodegradation processes, the success of this technology
is highly dependent upon soil and chemical properties.
Cost: One cost estimate is in the range of $40 to $60 per liter ($160 to $230 per
gallon) of residual fuel removed from the aquifer.
References: Hutchins, S.R., G.W. Sewell, D.A. Kovacs, and G.A. Smith, 1991.
"Biodegradation of Aromatic Hydrocarbons by Aquifer Microorganisms
Under Denitrifying Conditions," Environmental Science and Technology,No.
25, pp. 68-76.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service

(NTIS), May 1991. Nitrate for Biorestoration of an Aquifer Contaminated
with Jet Fuel.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.431 10/31/00
4-126
4.31 NITRATE ENHANCEMENT
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
Eglin AFB, FL Alison Thomas Nitrate enhancement of
AL/EQW anaerobic degradation of
Tyndall AFB JP-4 NA NA NA
(904) 283-6303
Hanahan Defense Don A. Vroblesky Nitrates added to 2,000 mg/L BTEX <10 mg/L
Supply Point, SC USGS groundwater and injected BTEX
Columbia, SC 29210-7651 into aquifer to enhance NA
(803) 750-6115 natural biodegradation of jet
fuel
Stalworth Timber Jason Darby RCRA Lead — Currently in
Beatrice, AL (404) 347-3433 predesign — addition of O2
potassium nitrate, potassium NA NA NA
phosphate, and molasses
Park City John Wilson CERCLA Lead — Full scale Petro, benzene Benzene, 5 $650K
Park City, KS (405) 332-8800 since December 1992. ppb expected total
Ammonium chloride and
nitrate addition
Points of Contact:
Alison Thomas USAF (904) 283-6303 AL/EQW-OL
139 Barnes Drive
Frank Chapelle USGS (803) 750-6116 720 Gracern Road, Stephenson Center,
Suite 129
Columbia, SC 29210
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.431 10/31/00
4-127
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.431 10/31/00
4-128
4.32 OXYGEN ENHANCEMENT WITH AIR SPARGING
Description: Air is injected under pressure below the water table to increase groundwater
oxygen concentrations and enhance the rate of biological degradation of
organic contaminants by naturally occurring microbes. (VOC stripping
enhanced by air sparging is addressed in Treatment Technology Profile 4.34).
Air sparging increases mixing in the saturated zone, which increases the
contact between groundwater and soil. The ease and low cost of installing
small-diameter air injection points allows considerable flexibility in the design
and construction of a remediation system. Oxygen enhancement with air
sparging is typically used in conjunction with SVE or bioventing to enhance
removal of the volatile component under consideration.
4-32 TYPICAL OXYGEN-ENHANCED BIOREMEDIATION SYSTEM FOR CONTAMINATED

GROUNDWATER WITH AIR SPARGING
Applicability: Oxygen enhancement with air sparging is primarily designed to treat nonhalogenated
VOCs, SVOCs, and fuels. The process has limited effectiveness on some
pesticides.
include:
· Fracturing of the product plume is a primary concern and has led to

some agencies not allowing the use of air sparging where free product
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.432 10/31/00
4-129
is present. This technology may be used in conjunction with free

product recovery.
· A permeability differential, such as a clay layer, above the air injection

zone can reduce the effectiveness of air sparging.
· Where vertical air flow is restricted as a result of the presence of less

permeable strata, sparging can push contaminated groundwater away
from the injection point. In these cases, a groundwater recovery
system or SVE system may be needed.
· Vapors may rise through the vadose zone and be released into the
atmosphere.
· Because air sparging increases pressure in the vadose zone, vapors can
build up in building basements, which are generally low pressure
areas.
Characteristics that should be investigated prior to system design include

Performance
Data: As with other biological treatments, the success of this technology is highly
dependent upon the biodegradability of the contaminants.
Although oxygen enhancement with air sparging is relatively new, the related
technology, bioventing (Treatment Technology Profile 4.2), is rapidly
receiving increased attention from remediation consultants. This technology
employs the same concepts as bioventing, except that air is injected below the
water table to promote the remediation of groundwater.
Cost: Cost estimates are $10 to $20 per 1,000 liters ($50 to $100 per 1,000
gallons) of groundwater treated or $85,000 per site.
References: Dey, C.D., R.A. Brown, and W.E. McFarland, 1991. "Integrated Site
Remediation Combining Groundwater Treatment, Soil Vapor Recovery, and
Bioremediation," Hazardous Materials Control, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 32-39,
March/April 1991.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.432 10/31/00
4-130
4.32 OXYGEN ENHANCEMENT WITH AIR SPARGING
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
Mayville Fire Jon Mayes Groundwater treatment with BTEX Expected 1/94
Department (517) 684-9141 indigenous organisms (1/800/70/300 NA
Mayville, MI ppb)
Dover AFB Milton Beck Air sparge with bioventing Several areas: BTEX 10 ppm One area
3
Dover, DE (302) 677-6845 pilot studies PAHs, TCE TPH 1,000 (230,000 m )
metals, solvents ppm Total expected
full scale
$1.2M
French Limited Judith Black CERCLA Lead — air PCB, As, and MCLs Total expected
Crosby, TX (214) 655-6735 sparge, O2, and nutrient petroleum $90M
addition
Points of Contact:
Jeffrey M. Fischer DOE - USGS (609) 771-3900 Mountain View Office Park
810 Bear Tavern Road
Suite 206
West Trenton, NJ 08628
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.432 10/31/00
4-131
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.432 10/31/00
4-132
4.33 OXYGEN ENHANCEMENT WITH HYDROGEN PEROXIDE
Description: A dilute solution of hydrogen peroxide is circulated through the contaminated

groundwater zone to increase the oxygen content of groundwater and enhance
the rate of aerobic biodegradation of organic contaminants by naturally
occurring microbes.
4-33 OXYGEN-ENHANCED (H2O2) BIOREMEDIATION SYSTEM
Applicability: Oxygen enhancement with hydrogen peroxide is primarily designed to treat VOCs,
SVOCs, and fuels. The process may have some effect in treating some pesticides.
include:
· Concentrations of H2O2 greater than 100 to 200 ppm in groundwater

are inhibiting to microorganisms.
· A groundwater circulation system must be created so that

contaminants do not escape from zones of active biodegradation.

the hydrogen peroxide solution throughout the different zones of
contamination. Higher permeability zones are cleaned up much faster
because groundwater flow rates are greater.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.433 10/31/00
4-133
· Microbial enzymes and high iron content of subsurface materials can

rapidly reduce concentrations of hydrogen peroxide and reduce zones
of influence.
· Amended hydrogen peroxide can be consumed very rapidly near the

injection well, which creates two significant problems: biological
growth can be limited to the region near the injection well, limiting
adequate contamination/microorganism contact throughout the
contaminated zone; and biofouling of wells can retard the input of
nutrients.
· A surface treatment system, such as air stripping or carbon adsorption,

may be required to treat extracted groundwater prior to re-injection or
disposal.
(Data Requirements for Groundwater, Surface Water, and Leachate). For
best results, factors that must be considered include redox conditions,
presence of nutrient trace elements, pH, temperature, permeability of the
subsurface materials, and the contaminants' biodegradability.
Performance
Data: Two previous in situ bioremediation field tests that used hydrogen peroxide to
enhance the aerobic degradation of jet fuel showed poor oxygen transfer and
use and aquifer plugging as a result of geochemical reactions resulting in
poor overall performance of this technology. A joint effort is underway by
USAF and EPA's Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
(RSKERL) to perform an enhanced anaerobic field demonstration at a
petroleum, oils, and lubricant (POL) contamination site at Eglin AFB in
Florida. Field work for this effort began in March 1993 with site
characterization activities and sample collection for laboratory treatability
tests. Construction of the treatment system was scheduled to begin in
January 1994, and operation will continue for about 9 months.
Cost: Typical costs are $10 to $20 per 1,000 liters ($50 to $100 per 1,000 gallons)
of groundwater treated. O&M costs can be significant because a continuous
source of hydrogen peroxide must be delivered to the contaminated
groundwater.
References: Not available.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.433 10/31/00
4-134
4.33 OXYGEN ENHANCEMENT WITH HYDROGEN PEROXIDE
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
Knispel Frank Peduto UST Lead — Soil and 5 ppb O&M $250K
Construction Site (518) 457-2462 groundwater in situ land petroleum
Horseheads, NJ treatment — H2O2 and hydro-carbons
nutrient addition NA
Full-scale remedy
January-October 1989
Orkin Facility Joe Malinowski TSCA Lead — Planned land Chlordane and
Fort Pierce, FL (404) 888-2895 treatment of heptachlor
soil/groundwater with H2O2 NA NA
and nutrient addition —
aerobic and anaerobic
cycles
Farfield Coal & Steve Jones CERCLA Lead — Pilot scale Coal tar BTEX, 1 ppb Total expected
Gas (913) 551-7755 H2O2 and nitrate injection— PAHs benzene, 200 $1.6M
Farfield, IA possible problem with poor ppt cPAHs
transmissivity of aquifer in
full scale
Points of Contact:
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.433 10/31/00
4-135
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.433 10/31/00
4-136
4.34 AIR SPARGING
Description: Air sparging is an in situ technology in which air is bubbled through a

contaminated aquifer. Air bubbles traverse horizontally and vertically
through the soil column, creating an underground stripper that removes
contaminants by volatilization. These air bubbles carry the contaminants to a
vapor extraction system. Vapor extraction is implemented in conjunction
with air sparging to remove the generated vapor phase contamination. This
technology is designed to operate at high flow rates to maintain increased
contact between groundwater and soil and strip more groundwater by
sparging.
4-34 TYPICAL AIR SPARGING SYSTEM
Applicability: The target contaminant groups for air sparging are VOCs and fuels. Only limited
information is available on the process.
include:
· Depth of contaminants and specific site geology must be considered.
· Air injection wells must be designed for site-specific conditions.
· Air flow through the saturated zone may not be uniform.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.434 10/31/00
4-137
Characteristics that should be determined include vadose zone gas
permeability, groundwater flow rate, aquifer permeability, presence of low
permeability layers, presence of DNAPLs, depth of contamination, and
contaminant volatility and solubility.
Performance
Data: This technology will be demonstrated over the next 2 to 3 years at DOE's
Hanford Reservation as part of the agency's Integrated Technology
Demonstration Program for Arid Sites. Air sparging has demonstrated
sensitivity to minute permeability changes, which can result in localized
stripping between the sparge and monitoring wells.
Cost: One estimate, $371,000 to $865,000 per hectare ($150,000 to $350,000 per
acre) of groundwater plume to be treated, was available.
References: Hildebrandt, W. and F. Jasiulewicz, 1992. "Cleaning Up Military Bases,"

The Military Engineer, No. 55, p. 7, September-October 1992.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.434 10/31/00
4-138
4.34 AIR SPARGING
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
Savannah River, NA NA PCE 3-124 <184 ppb NA
IL TCE 10-1,031 <1.8 ppb
Conservancy Site BTX 49-60%
Belen, NM NA NA reduction NA
Points of Contact:
Steve Stein Environmental (206) 528-3340 4000 N.E. 41st Street
Management Seattle, WA 98105
Organization, Pacific
Northwest Division
Steven M. Gorelick Stanford University (415) 725-2950 Stanford, CA 94305-2225
Dept. of Applied Earth
Sciences
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.434 10/31/00
4-139
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.434 10/31/00
4-140
4.35 DIRECTIONAL WELLS
Description: Drilling techniques are used to position wells horizontally, or at an angle, to

reach contaminants not accessible by direct vertical drilling. Directional well
technology is used exclusively as an enhancement technology for other in situ
treatment technologies. Technologies used with directional wells include
biodegradation, bioventing, SVE, soil flushing, and air sparging.
4-35 TYPICAL DIAGRAM OF IN SITU AIR STRIPPING WITH HORIZONTAL WELLS

Hardware used for directional boring includes wireline coring rigs, hydraulic
thrust systems, electric cone penetrometers, steering tracking hardware, sonic
drilling, and push coring systems. Hydraulically activated thrust equipment
capable of exerting more than 40 tons of thrust is used to push the directional
boring heads into the earth. Directional control is obtained by proper
positioning of the face of the nonsymmetric boring head. Slow rotation of the
boring head will cut and compact the geologic material into the borehole wall.
Thrusting a boring head that is not rotating will cause a directional change.
The machinery is capable of initiating a borehole, steering down to a desired
horizontal depth, continuing at that depth, and then steering back to the
surface at a downrange location.
Applicability: Directional well technology is applicable to the complete range of contaminant

groups with no particular target group. It is particularly useful when existing
structures interfere with placement of vertical wells.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.435 10/31/00
4-141
Limitations: The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of this
technology:
· Well failures are possible during system installation.

· The potential exists for the wells to collapse.
· Specialized equipment is required.
· Wells are difficult to position precisely.
· Installation of horizontal wells is typically costly.
· Currently, the technology is limited to depths of less than 50 feet.
Performance
Data: Testing was performed as part of the Mixed Waste Landfill Integrated
Demonstration at Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM. Several
directional holes were drilled; a depth of 12 meters (40 feet) was achieved
with a maximum horizontal extent of 174 meters (570 feet).
A DOE field demonstration at the Savannah River site was performed in

FY90 for in situ air stripping (ISAS), a mass transfer process that uses
horizontal injection and vacuum extraction wells to remediate sites
contaminated with VOCs within the vadose zone and soil/groundwater in the
saturated zone. Air is injected into the saturated zone through horizontal
injection wells placed below the water table. As the air passes through the
contaminant plume, it volatilizes the chemical constituents. This process
performs best in homogeneous soil conditions, while heterogeneities such as
formations, fractures, clay layers, and partial clay lenses hinder performance.
Clay layers often have high contaminant concentrations, while stratigraphy
can cause preferential flow paths and limit the process efficiency. ISAS has
been shown to be effective when some interbedded, thin, and/or discontinuous
clays are present. A full-scale demonstration, including 4% methane
enhancement as a bioremediation nutrient in the injection well, was conducted
during FY92, with results to be available in FY93. Better underground
transport modeling and bioremediation modeling are needed. The technology
was also used successfully in the DOE VOCs in the Non-Arid Soils
Integrated Demonstration in Savannah River, South Carolina. Testing of
directional boring for monitoring equipment installation was performed in an
actual contamination zone during the summer of 1992.
Cost: Estimated costs are about $60 to $250 per meter ($20 to $75 per foot) for
hydraulic bi-directional thrust drilling. Sonic drilling can be as much as $330
per meter ($100 per foot).
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.435 10/31/00
4-142
4.35 DIRECTIONAL WELLS
References: DOE, 1991. "Horizontal Hybrid Directional Boring," FY92 Technical Task
Plan, TTP Reference No.: AL-ZU23-J2.
DOE, 1991. "SRS Integrated Demonstration: Directional Drilling," FY92

Technical Task Plan, TTP Reference No.: SR-1211-01.
DOE, 1992. "Directional Sonic Drilling," FY93 Technical Task Plan, TTP
Reference No.: AL-2311-05.
DOE, 1993. Directional Boring and Thrusting with Hybrid Underground

Utility Industry Equipment, ProTech Database, TTP References: AL2211-16
and AL2211-03.
DOE, 1993. Technology Name: Slant-Angle Sonic Drilling, Technology

Information Profile (Rev. 2), DOE ProTech Database, TTP Reference No.:
AL2310-05.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.435 10/31/00
4-143
Points of Contact:
Skip Chamberlain DOE-OTD (301) 903-7248 EM-551, Trevion II
Geoscience Research DOE-Sandia National (505) 844-2230 P.O. Box 5800
Drilling Office Laboratories Org. 6111
Albuquerque, NM 87185
Mike Breazeale USAF (602) 988-6487 Williams AFB CA/OLS
6001 South Power Road, Bldg. 1
Mesa, AZ 85206-0901
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.435 10/31/00
4-144
4.36 DUAL PHASE EXTRACTION
Description: A high vacuum system is applied to simultaneously remove liquid and gas
from low permeability or heterogeneous formations. The vacuum extraction
well includes a screened section in the zone of contaminated soils and
groundwater. As the vacuum is applied to the well, soil vapor is extracted,
and groundwater is entrained by the extracted vapors. Once above grade, the
extracted vapors and groundwater are separated and treated. Dual phase
extraction is a full-scale technology.
Dual phase extraction is generally combined with bioremediation, air

sparging, or bioventing when the target contaminants include long-chained
hydrocarbons. Use of dual phase extraction with these technologies can
shorten the cleanup time at a site. It also can be used with pump-and-treat
technologies to recover groundwater from high yielding aquifers. Dual phase
provides a better control of the groundwater. When containment of
vapors/liquids is necessary, the results are far better than those obtained
through air sparging.
4-36 TYPICAL DUAL PHASE EXTRACTION SCHEMATIC
Applicability: The target contaminant groups for dual phase extraction are VOCs and fuels. Dual
phase vacuum extraction is used to remediate soil and groundwater. It is more
effective than SVE for heterogeneous clays and fine sands.
process:
· Site geology and contaminant characteristics/distribution may limit

effectiveness.
· Combination with complementary technologies (e.g., pump-and-treat)
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.436 10/31/00
4-145
may be required to recover groundwater from high yielding aquifers.
· Dual phase extraction requires both water treatment and vapor

treatment.
Data needs include contaminant characteristics and distribution, site geology

and hydrogeology, and soil properties.
Performance
Data: Not available.
Cost: Estimated cost ranges from $85,000 to $500,000 per site.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.436 10/31/00
4-146
4.36 DUAL PHASE EXTRACTION
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
Lockheed David Bluestein AWD AquaDetox/SVE 2.2 ppm TCE; 11 98-99.99 % $3.2-5.8M
Aeronautical AWD Technologies, Inc. System treating groundwaterppm PCE; 6,000 removal. capital;
Systems Co. 49 Stevenson St., Suite and soil >3 years. ppm total VOC soil <$1.5M yearly
Burbank, CA 600 gas. O&M.
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 227-0822
Points of Contact:
Gordon Evans EPA RREL (513) 569-7684 26 West M.L. King Dr.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.436 10/31/00
4-147
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.436 10/31/00
4-148
4.37 FREE PRODUCT RECOVERY
Description: Undissolved liquid-phase organics are removed from subsurface formations,

either by active methods (e.g., pumping) or a passive collection system. This
process is used primarily in cases where a fuel hydrocarbon lens more than
20 centimeters (8 inches) thick is floating on the water table. The free
product is generally drawn up to the surface by a pumping system.
Following recovery, it can be disposed of, re-used directly in an operation not
requiring high-purity materials, or purified prior to re-use. Systems may be
designed to recover only product, mixed product and water, or separate
streams of product and water (i.e., dual pump or dual well systems). Free
product recovery is a full-scale technology.
4-37 TYPICAL FREE PRODUCT RECOVERY DUAL PUMP SYSTEM
Applicability: The target contaminant groups for free product recovery are SVOCs and fuels.
process:
· Site geology and hydrogeology.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.437 10/31/00
4-149
The potential for accumulation of liquid phase product that is free to move by
gravity above the water table is dependent on several factors, including
physical and chemical properties of the product released (e.g., viscosity,
density, composition, and solubility in water); soil properties (e.g., capillary
forces, effective porosity, moisture content, organic content, hydraulic
conductivity, and texture); nature of the release (e.g., initial date of
occurrence, duration, volume, and rate); geology (e.g., stratigraphy that
promotes trapped pockets of free product); hydrogeologic regime (e.g., depth
to water table, groundwater flow direction, and gradient); and anticipated
product recharge rate.
Performance
Data: Once free product is detected, the immediate response should include both
removal of the source and recovery of product by the most expedient means.
Free product recovery methods will often extract contaminated water with the
product. If economically desirable, water and product can be separated by
gravity prior to disposal or recycling of the product. As a result of the
removal of substantial quantities of water during dual pumping operations,
on-site water treatment will normally be required. When treatment of
recovered water is required, permits will usually be necessary.
Cost: Because of the number of variances involved, establishing general costs for
free product response is difficult. Some representative costs are $500 per
month for a single phase extraction (hand bailing) system; $1,200 to $2,000
per month for a single phase extraction (skimming) system; and $2,500 to
$4,000 per month for a dual pumping system. These costs illustrate the
relative magnitudes of the various recovery options available, which are
typically less than other types of remediation.
Key cost factors for the recovery of free product include waste disposal,
potential for sale of recovered product for recycling, on-site equipment rental
(e.g., pumps, tanks, treatment systems), installation of permanent equipment,
and engineering and testing costs.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.437 10/31/00
4-150
4.37 FREE PRODUCT RECOVERY
References: American Petroleum Institute, 1989. A Guide to the Assessment and

Remediation of Underground Petroleum Releases, Publication 1628, API,
Washington, DC, 81 pp.
EPA, 1988. Cleanup of Releases from Petroleum USTs: Selected

Technologies, Washington, DC, EPA/530/UST-88/001.
Kram, M.L., 1990. Measurement of Floating Petroleum Product Thickness

and Determination of Hydrostatic Head in Monitoring Wells, NEESA
Energy and Environmental News Information Bulletin No. 1B-107.
Kram, M.L., 1993. Free Product Recovery: Mobility Limitations and

Improved Approaches. NFESC Information Bulletin No. IB-123.
NEESA, 1992. Immediate Response to Free Product Discovery. NEESA

Document No. 20.2-051.4.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.437 10/31/00
4-151
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
Navy Gasoline Mark Kram >0.25 ft floating product; About 12,000 4,000 gallons $75,000 plus
Station Coastal NFESC Code 413 dual pumping extraction and gallons of gasoline recovered by vapor
Area thermal vacuum spray diesel pump extraction
aeration and spray aeration costs
vacuum extraction
Navy Fuel Farm Mike Radecki 0.5-2.5 ft free product. $300,000 to
SOUTHWESTDIV Captured in pit and pumped date
out with skimmers and NA NA
french drains
Privately Owned Connecticut DEP Immediate response
Gasoline Station (203) 566-4630 recovery wells and air
Near Urban stripping NA NA NA
Drinking Water
Source
Various USAF and USAF Armstrong "Bioslurping" technology
Navy Sites Lab/EQW demonstrations
Tyndall AFB, FL NA NA NA
(904) 283-6208
Ron Hoeppel
(805) 982-1655
Points of Contact:
Mark Kram NFESC (805) 982-2669 Code 413
Mike Radecki SOUTHWESTDIV (619) 532-3874 San Diego, CA
Tom Schruben EPA Office of USTs (703) 308-8875 Washington, DC
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.437 10/31/00
4-152
4.38 HOT WATER OR STEAM FLUSHING/STRIPPING
Description: Steam is forced into an aquifer through injection wells to vaporize volatile
and semivolatile contaminants. Vaporized components rise to the unsaturated
(vadose) zone where they are removed by vacuum extraction and then treated.
Hot water or steam-based techniques include Contained Recovery of Oily
Waste (CROW®), Steam Injection and Vacuum Extraction (SIVE®), In Situ
Steam-Enhanced Extraction (ISEE®), and Steam-Enhanced Recovery
Process (SERP®). Hot water or steam flushing/stripping is a pilot-scale
technology. In situ biological treatment may follow the displacement and is
continued until groundwater contaminants concentrations satisfy statutory
requirements.
4-38 CROW? SUBSURFACE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
The process can be used to remove large portions of oily waste accumulations
and to retard downward and lateral migration of organic contaminants. The
process is applicable to shallow and deep contaminated areas, and readily
available mobile equipment can be used.
Applicability: The target contaminant groups for hot water or steam flushing/stripping are SVOCs
and fuels. VOCs also can be treated by this technology, but there are more cost-
effective processes for sites contaminated with VOCs.
This technology can be applied at manufactured gas plants, wood-treating

sites, petroleum-refining facilities, and other sites with soils containing light
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.438 10/31/00
4-153
to dense organic liquids, such as coal tars, pentachlorophenol solutions,

creosote, and petroleum by-products.
include:
· Soil type, geology, and hydrogeology will significantly impact process

effectiveness.
Performance
Data: Four vendors are promoting hot water or steam flushing/stripping processes.
The CROW system appears to be the most developed of the four.
The CROW technology was tested both at the laboratory and pilot-scale
under the EPA SITE Emerging Technology Program. The program showed
the effectiveness of the hot-water displacement and displayed the benefits
from the inclusion of chemicals with the hot water.
References: EPA, 1990. Toxic Treatments In Situ Steam/Hot Air Stripping Technology,
Applications Analysis Report, Prepared by Science Applications International
Corporation, San Diego, CA, for EPA RREL, Cincinnati, OH.
EPA, 1991. In Situ Steam Extraction Treatment, Engineering Bulletin,

OERR, Washington, DC, EPA Report EPA/540/2-91/005.
EPA, 1992. The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program:

Technology Profiles (Fifth Edition), OSWER, EPA/940/R-92/077.
EPA, 1994. In-Situ Steam Enhanced Recovery System — Hughes

Environmental Systems, Inc., Demonstration Bulletin EPA/540/MR-94/510.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.438 10/31/00
4-154
4.38 HOT WATER OR STEAM FLUSHING/STRIPPING
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
3
Huntington Beach, Paul dePercin EPA site demo of SERP 45,000 yd of soil 20-40% About
3
CA EPA RREL completed but results not (diesel removal $40/yd
26 West M.L. King Dr. good, probably because of fuel, TPH, and
Cincinnati, OH 45268 poor application rather than TRPH)
(513) 569-7797 technology delivery
ineffectiveness
Pennsylvania Eugene Harris EPA SITE demo of CROW,
Power & Light EPA RREL starting on-site November
Stroudsburg, PA 26 West M.L. King Dr. 1994 NA NA NA
(513) 569-7862
Points of Contact:
John Mathur DOE (301) 903-7922 EM-551, Trevion II
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.438 10/31/00
4-155
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.438 10/31/00
4-156
4.39 HYDROFRACTURING
Description: Hydrofracturing is a pilot-scale technology in which pressurized water is

injected to increase the permeability of consolidated material or relatively
impermeable unconsolidated material. Fissures created in the process are
filled with a porous medium that can facilitate bioremediation and/or improve
extraction efficiency. Fractures promote more uniform delivery of treatment
fluids and accelerated extraction of mobilized contaminants. Typical
applications are linked with soil vapor extraction, in situ bioremediation, and
pump-and-treat systems.
4-39 TYPICAL SEQUENCE OF OPERATIONS FOR CREATING HYDRAULIC FRACTURES
The fracturing process begins with the injection of water into a sealed
borehole until the pressure of the water exceeds the overburden pressure and
a fracture is created. A slurry composed of a coarse-grained sand and guar
gum gel is then injected as the fracture grows away from the well. After
pumping, the sand grains hold the fracture open while an enzyme additive
breaks down the viscous fluid. The thinned fluid is pumped from the
fracture, forming a permeable subsurface channel suitable for delivery or
recovery of a vapor or liquid.
The hydraulic fracturing process can be used in conjunction with soil vapor
extraction technology to enhance recovery. Hydraulically-induced fractures
are used to deliver fluids and nutrients for in situ bioremediation applications.
Applicability: Hydrofracturing is applicable to a wide range of contaminant groups with no

particular target group.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.439 10/31/00
4-157
include:
· The technology should not be used in bedrock susceptible to seismic

activity.
· Investigation of possible underground utilities, structures, or trapped

free product is required.
· The potential exists to open new pathways leading to the unwanted

spread of contaminants (e.g., DNAPLs).
· Pockets of low permeability may still remain after using this

technology.
Performance
Data: The technology has had widespread use in the petroleum and water-well
construction industries but is an innovative method for remediating hazardous
waste sites.
Cost: The cost per fracture is estimated to be $1,000 to $1,500, based on creating
four to six fractures per day. This cost (including equipment rental,
operation, and monitoring) is small compared to the benefits of enhanced
remediation and the reduced number of wells needed to complete the
remediation. A number of factors affect the estimated costs of creating
hydraulic fractures at a site. These factors include physical site conditions
such as site accessibility and degree of soil consolidation; degree of soil
saturation; and geographical location, which affects availability of services
and supplies. The first two factors also affect the effectiveness of hydraulic
fracturing.
The costs presented in this analysis are based on conditions found at the
Xerox Oak Brook site. A full-scale demonstration was not conducted for this
technology. Because operating costs were not independently monitored
during the pilot-scale demonstrations at the Xerox Oak Brook and Dayton
sites, all costs presented in this section were provided by Xerox and
University of Cincinnati Center Hill.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.439 10/31/00
4-158
4.39 HYDROFRACTURING
References: EPA, 1993. Hydraulic Fracturing of Contaminated Soil, series includes

Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/MR-93/505; Technology Evaluation and
Applications Analysis Combined, EPA/540/R-93/505; and Technology
Demonstration Summary, EPA/540/SR-93/505.
Hubbert, M.K and D.G. Willis, 1957. "Mechanics of Hydraulic Fracturing,"

Petroleum Transactions AIME, Vol. 210, pp. 153 through 168.
Murdoch, L.C., 1990. "A Field Test of Hydraulic Fracturing in Glacial Till,"
in Proceedings of the Research Symposium, Ohio, EPA Report, EPA/600/9-
90/006.
Murdoch, L.C., 1993. "Hydraulic Fracturing of Soil During Laboratory

Experiments, Part I: Methods and Observations; Part II: Propagation; Part
III: Theoretical Analysis, Geotechnique, Vol. 43, No. 2, Institution of Civil
Engineers, London, pp. 255 to 287.
University of Cincinnati (UC), 1991. Work Plan for Hydraulic Fracturing

at the Xerox Oak Brook Site in Oak Brook, Illinois.
Wolf, A. and L.C. Murdoch, 1992. The Effect of Sand-Filled Hydraulic

Fractures on Subsurface Air Flow: Summary of SVE Field Tests Conducted
at the Center Hill Research Facility, UC Center Hill Facility, Unpublished
Report.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.439 10/31/00
4-159
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
Xerox Facility SVE of organic solvents. 10 $950 - 1,425
Oak Brook, IL times increase in vapor per fracture
NA extraction; 30 times increase
in area covered; pore water NA NA
infiltration decreased.
Dayton, OH In situ bioremediation of
BTEX/UST site. 100 times
NA increase in water flow; 75% NA NA NA
increase in bioremediation
rate.
Points of Contact:
Naomi Barkley EPA RREL (513) 569-7854 26 West M.L. King Dr.
L. Murdoch, Director of Dept. Civil and (513) 569-7897 5995 Center Hill Road
Research Environmental Cincinnati, OH
Engineering
University of Cincinnati
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.439 10/31/00
4-160
4.40 PASSIVE TREATMENT WALLS
Description: A permeable reaction wall is installed across the flow path of a contaminant
plume, allowing the water portion of the plume to passively move through the
wall. These barriers allow the passage of water while prohibiting the
movement of contaminants by employing such agents as chelators (ligands
selected for their specificity for a given metal), sorbents, microbes, and
others.
4-40 TYPICAL PASSIVE TREATMENT WALL (CROSS-SECTION)

The contaminants will either be degraded or retained in a concentrated form
by the barrier material. The wall could provide permanent containment for
relatively benign residues or provide a decreased volume of the more toxic
contaminants for subsequent treatment.
Barrier and post-closure monitoring tests are being conducted by DOE in

field-scale demonstration plots and are being designed for actual
contaminated sites. The range of materials available for augmenting existing
barrier practice is broad. Two types of barriers have been the focus of initial
efforts of this program, i.e., permeable reactive barriers and in-place
bioreactors.
Applicability: Target contaminant groups for passive treatment walls are VOCs, SVOCs, and
inorganics. The technology can be used, but may be less effective, in treating some
fuel hydrocarbons.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.440 10/31/00
4-161
include:
· Passive treatment walls may lose their reactive capacity, requiring

replacement of the reactive medium.
· The system requires consistent control of pH levels. When the pH

level within the passive treatment wall rises, it reduces the reaction rate
and can inhibit effectiveness of the wall.
· Depth and width of barrier.
· Volume cost of treatment medium.
· Biological activity may limit the permeability of the passive treatment

wall.
Data needs include hydraulic gradient; contaminant characteristics (depth,

areal extent, type, and concentration); groundwater hydrology; water quality,
flow rate, and direction; soil permeability; and buffering capacity.
Performance
Data: Data have been developed by USAF, the University of Waterloo, and
Environmental Technologies but have received limited dissemination in the
technical literature to date. This technology currently is available from only
one vendor, Environmental Technologies (Canada).
The technology is not commercially available. Laboratory testing phase

occurred at CERL from 1989 to present. Full-scale implementation occurred
in Albuquerque, New Mexico, between 1989 and 1992.
DOE evaluation of currently installed systems was scheduled to be completed

in early 1994. The first barrier and monitoring systems were installed in
1992 and tracer tests, which would include the effects of seasonal changes in
the environment, were scheduled for completion in 1993. Approximately two
additional years would be required to test and evaluate each additional barrier
system.
Baseline technologies currently being used by DOE include grouts, clay

slurries, and cements for pure hydrologic barriers, landfill caps for the
biotreatment systems, and monitoring well characterization for water-
saturation and contaminants during the post-closure monitoring approaches.
These barriers are all subject to cracking.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.440 10/31/00
4-162
4.40 PASSIVE TREATMENT WALLS
Cost: Field tests at DOE Los Alamos National Laboratory that were scheduled for
completion in early 1994 had an initial capital cost of $1,200,000 and an
O&M cost of $670,000 in FY93. Life cycle costs for operational systems
have not been estimated but are expected to be 5 to 10 times less than
excavation.
References: DOE, 1993. Technical Name: Barriers and Post-Closure Monitoring,

Technology Information Profile (Rev. 2), DOE Protech Database, TTP No.
AL-1211-25.
Hansen, W., et al., 1992. Barriers and Post-Closure Monitoring, Briefing

Chart, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, TTP No. AL-
1212-25.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.440 10/31/00
4-163
Site Information:
Site Name Contact Summary Costs
Hill AFB, UT Maj. Mark Smith "Funnel and Gate" Demonstration
USAF
Tyndall AFB, FL NA
(904) 283-6126
Los Alamos National Laboratory Ken Bostick Barriers and post-closure monitoring— $1.2M cap.
Mail Stop J495 completion early 1994 $670K O&M
Organization EES-15 in FY93
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Los Alamos, NM 87545
(505) 667-3331
Fax: (505) 665-3866
Points of Contact:
(217) 352-6511 Champaign, IL 61826-9005
(800) USA-CERL
Skip Chamberlain DOE (301) 903-7248 EM-551
Trevion II
Mark Smith USAF (904) 283-6126 AL/EQW
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.440 10/31/00
4-164
4.41 SLURRY WALLS
Description: Slurry walls are used to contain contaminated groundwater, divert

contaminated groundwater from the drinking water intake, divert
uncontaminated groundwater flow, and/or provide a barrier for the
groundwater treatment system.
4-41 TYPICAL KEYED-IN SLURRY WALL (CROSS SECTION)
These subsurface barriers consist of a vertically excavated trench that is

filled with a slurry. The slurry hydraulically shores the trench to prevent
collapse and forms a filter cake to reduce groundwater flow. Slurry walls
often are used where the waste mass is too large for treatment and where
soluble and mobile constituents pose an imminent threat to a source of
drinking water.
Slurry walls are a full-scale technology that have been used for decades as
long-term solutions for controlling seepage. They are often used in
conjunction with capping. The technology has demonstrated its effectiveness
in containing greater than 95% of the uncontaminated groundwater; however,
in contaminated groundwater applications, specific contaminant types may
degrade the slurry wall components and reduce the long-term effectiveness.
Most slurry walls are constructed of a soil, bentonite, and water mixture;
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.441 10/31/00
4-165
walls of this composition provide a barrier with low permeability and

chemical resistance at low cost. Other wall compositions, such as sheet
piling, cement, bentonite, and water, may be used if greater structural
strength is required or if chemical incompatibilities between bentonite and site
contaminants exist.
Slurry walls are typically placed at depths less than 15 meters (50 feet) and
are generally 0.6 to 1.2 meters (2 to 4 feet) in thickness. The most effective
application of the slurry wall for site remediation or pollution control is to
base (or key) the slurry wall 0.6 to 0.9 meters (2 to 3 feet) into a low
permeability layer such as clay or bedrock, as shown in the preceding figure.
This "keying-in" provides for an effective foundation with minimum leakage
potential. An alternate configuration for slurry wall installation is a
"hanging" wall in which the wall projects into the groundwater table to block
the movement of lower density or floating contaminants such as oils, fuels, or
gases. Hanging walls are used less frequently than keyed-in walls.
Applicability: Slurry walls contain the groundwater itself, thus treating no particular target group
of contaminants. They are used to contain contaminated groundwater, divert
contaminated groundwater from drinking water intake, divert uncontaminated
groundwater flow, and/or provide a barrier for the groundwater treatment system.
include:
· The technology only contains contaminants within a specific area.
· Soil-bentonite backfills are not able to withstand attack by strong

acids, bases, salt solutions, and some organic chemicals. Other slurry
mixtures can be developed to resist specific chemicals.
· There is the potential for the slurry walls to degrade or deteriorate over
time.
The following factors, at a minimum, must be assessed prior to designing

effective soil-bentonite slurry walls: maximum allowable permeability,
anticipated hydraulic gradients, required wall strength, availability and grade
of bentonite to be used, boundaries of contamination, compatibility of wastes
and contaminants in contact with slurry wall materials, characteristics (i.e.,
depth, permeability, and continuity) of substrate into which the wall is to be
keyed, characteristics of backfill material (e.g., fines content), and site terrain
and physical layout.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.441 10/31/00
4-166
4.41 SLURRY WALLS
Performance
Data: Slurry walls have been used for decades, so the equipment and methodology
are readily available and well known; however, the process of designing the
proper mix of wall materials to contain specific contaminants is less well
developed. Excavation and backfilling of the trench is critical and requires
experienced contractors.
Cost: Costs likely to be incurred in the design and installation of a standard soil-
bentonite wall in soft to medium soil range from $540 to $750 per square
meter ($5 to $7 per square foot) (1991 dollars). These costs do not include
variable costs required for chemical analyses, feasibility, or compatibility
testing. Testing costs depend heavily on site-specific factors.
Factors that have the most significant impact on the final cost of soil-
bentonite slurry wall installation include:
· Type, activity, and distribution of contaminants.
· Depth, length, and width of wall.
· Geological and hydrological characteristics.
· Distance from source of materials and equipment.
· Requirements for wall protection and maintenance.
· Type of slurry and backfill used.
· Other site-specific requirements as identified in the initial site

assessment (e.g., presence of contaminants or debris).
References: Goldberg-Zoino and Associates, Inc., 1987. Construction Quality Control

and Post-Construction Performance for the Gilson Road Hazardous Waste
Site Cutoff Wall, EPA Report EPA/600/2-87/065.
McCandless, R.M. and A. Bodocsi, 1987. Investigation of Slurry Cutoff

Wall Design and Construction Methods for Containing Hazardous Wastes,
EPA Report EPA/600/2-87/063.
Miller, S.P., 1979. Geotechnical Containment Alternatives for Industrial

Waste Basin F, Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Denver, Colorado: A Quantitative
Evaluation, USAE-WES Technical Report GL-79-23.
Spooner, P.A., et al., 1984. Slurry Trench Construction for Pollution

Migration Control, EPA Report EPA/540/2-84/001.
USACE, 1986. Civil Works Construction Guide Specification for Soil-

Bentonite Slurry Trench Cutoffs, National Institute of Building Sciences,
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.441 10/31/00
4-167
Construction Criteria Base, CW-02214.
Zappi, M.E., D.D. Adrian, and R.R. Shafer, 1989. "Compatibility of Soil-
Bentonite Slurry Wall Backfill Mixtures with Contaminated Groundwater," in
Proceedings of the 1989 Superfund Conference,Washington, DC.
Zappi, M.E., R.A. Shafer, and D.D. Adrian, 1990. Compatibility of Ninth
Avenue Superfund Site Ground Water with Two Soil-Bentonite Slurry Wall
Backfill Mixtures, WES Report No. EL-90-9.
Site Information:
Site Name Contact Summary Costs
Hazardous Waste Landfill GEO-CON, Inc. Bentonite alternative used because
of saltwater environment and
presence of incompatible organic NA
compound.
Sanitary Landfill GEO-CON, Inc. Limited working area. NA
Coal Tar Disposal Pond Circumferential containment of
NA leachate from pond with metals and NA
phenols. Keyed to impervious till.
Points of Contact:
Jesse Oldham USAE-WES (601) 634-3111 Attn: CEWES-EE-S
or Mark E. Zappi (601) 634-2856 3903 Halls Ferry Road
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.441 10/31/00
4-168
4.42 VACUUM VAPOR EXTRACTION
Description: In vacuum vapor extraction (also known as in well air stripping), air is
injected into a well, lifting contaminated groundwater in the well and allowing
additional groundwater flow into the well. Once inside the well, some of the
VOCs in the contaminated groundwater are transferred from the water to air
bubbles, which rise and are collected at the top of the well by vapor
extraction. The partially treated groundwater is never brought to the surface;
it is forced into the unsaturated zone, and the process is repeated. As
groundwater circulates through the treatment system in situ, contaminant
concentrations are gradually reduced. Vacuum vapor extraction is a pilot-
scale technology.
4-42 TYPICAL UVB VACUUM VAPOR EXTRACTION DIAGRAM

Applicability: The target contaminant groups for vacuum vapor extraction are halogenated VOCs,
SVOCs, and fuels. Variations of the technology may allow for its effectiveness
against some nonhalogenated VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, and inorganics.
process:
· Fouling of the system may occur by oxidized constituents in the
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.442 10/31/00
4-169
groundwater.
· Shallow aquifers may limit process effectiveness.
Performance
Data: A variation of this process, called UVB (Unterdruck-Verdampfer Brunner),
has been used at numerous sites in Germany and has been introduced recently
into the United States.
Stanford University has developed another variation of this process, an in-

well sparging system, which is currently being evaluated as part of DOE's
Integrated Technology Demonstration Program. The Stanford system
combines air-lift pumping with a vapor stripping technique.
Awareness of this process is limited in the United States but can be expected
to increase as development and demonstration of technologies based on the
process continue.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.442 10/31/00
4-170
4.42 VACUUM VAPOR EXTRACTION
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
March AFB, CA Jeff Bannon Site demo of UVB system
WESTON
100 N. First St.
Suite 210 NA NA NA
Burbank, CA 91502
(818) 556-5226
Fax: (818) 556-6894
March AFB, CA Michelle Simon Site demo: air lift pumping, 30 ppb TCE at <1 ppb
EPA RREL in situ vapor stripping, and well inlet NA
(513) 569-7469 air sparging
Points of Contact:
Michelle Simon EPA RREL (513) 569-7469 26 West M.L. King Dr.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.442 10/31/00
4-171
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.442 10/31/00
4-172
4.43 BIOREACTORS
Description: Bioreactors degrade contaminants in water with microorganisms through

attached or suspended biological systems. In suspended growth systems,
such as activated sludge, fluidized beds, or sequencing batch reactors,
contaminated groundwater is circulated in an aeration basin where a
microbial population aerobically degrades organic matter and produces CO2,
H2O, and new cells. The cells form a sludge, which is settled out in a
clarifier, and is either recycled to the aeration basin or disposed of. In
attached growth systems, such as upflow fixed film bioreactors, rotating
biological contactors (RBCs), and trickling filters, microorganisms are
established on an inert support matrix to aerobically degrade water
contaminants.
4-43 TYPICAL ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTOR (RBC)
One promising methodology includes the use of active supports (such as

activated carbon, which adsorbs the contaminant and slowly releases it to the
microorganisms for degradation). The microbial population may be derived
either from the contaminant source or from an inoculum of organisms specific
to a contaminant. Other applications include wetland ecosystems and column
reactors.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.443 10/31/00
4-173
EX SITU WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Applicability: Bioreactors are used primarily to treat SVOCs, fuel hydrocarbons, and any
biodegradable organic material. The process may be less effective for some
pesticides. Successful pilot-scale field studies have been conducted on some
halogenated compounds, such as PCP and chlorobenzene and dichloro-benzene
isomers.
process:
· Residuals from sludge processes require treatment or disposal.
· Very high contaminant concentrations may be toxic to microorganisms.
· Air pollution controls may need to be applied if there is volatilization

from activated sludge processes.
· Low ambient temperatures significantly decrease biodegradation rates,

resulting in longer cleanup times or increased costs for heating.
· Nuisance microorganisms may preferentially colonize bioreactors,

leading to reduced effectiveness.
Data requirements include contaminants and their concentrations, soil

classification, texture, pH, presence of compounds toxic to microorganisms,
contaminant biodegradability, flow rate, temperature, and nutrient levels.
Performance
Data: This is a well developed technology that has been used for many decades in
the treatment of municipal wastewater. Equipment and materials are readily
available. As with other pump-and-treat technologies, time needed to clean
up is dependent upon subsurface conditions and the rate of desorption of
contaminants from subsurface materials, but it is typically faster than in situ
bioremediation.
Startup time can be slow if organisms need to be acclimated to the wastes;

however, the existence of cultures that have been previously adapted to
specific hazardous wastes can decrease startup and detention times.
DOE has demonstrated another biological process, biological destruction of

tank waste (BDTW), on the laboratory scale. This process is a separation
and volume-reduction process for supernatant and sluiced salt cake waste
from underground storage tanks. These wastes are usually composed of
various radionuclides and toxic metals concentrated in a nitrate salt solution.
The bacteria act as metal and radionuclide adsorbers and also as
denitrification catalysts that reproduce themselves at ambient temperature
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.443 10/31/00
4-174
4.43 BIOREACTORS
and pressure. Some degradation of organic contaminants may also occur

during the process.
The field demonstration bioreactor tank size is about 100 cubic meters, which
corresponds to a waste treatment rate of 2 gpm, sufficient to treat a 1-million
gallon tank in 1 year. At the 2-gpm size, the BDTW system is transportable.
The current bioreactor is able to process salt solutions having nitrate
concentrations up to 300,000 ppm. The maximum salt tolerance is being
explored. Power usage is estimated at 20 kW for pumping and agitation.
Cost: Costs are highly dependent on the contaminants and their concentrations in
the influent stream. Biological treatment has often been found to be more
economical than carbon adsorption.
Staging will vary from site to site depending on the wastestream. The cost to
install a single unit with a protective cover and a surface area of 9,300 to
13,900 square meters (100,000 to 150,000 square feet) ranges from $80,000
to $85,000.
References: DOE-ID, 1993. Technology Name: Biological Destruction of Tank Wastes,

Technology Information Profile (Rev. 2) for ProTech, DOE ProTech
Database, TTP Reference No.: ID-121204.
EPA, 1980. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual,

EPA, Office of Water Program Operations, EPA/430/9-78/009.
EPA, 1984. Design Information on Rotating Biological Contactors,

EPA/600/2-84/106.
EPA, 1987. Rotating Biological Contactors: U.S. Overview, EPA/600/D-

87/023.
EPA, 1991. BioTrol — Biotreatment of Groundwater, EPA RREL, series

includes Technology Evaluation, EPA/540/5-91/001, PB92-110048;
Summary, EPA/540/S5-91/001; and Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/M5-
91/001.
EPA, 1993. BioTrol, Inc. — Methanotrophic Bioreactor System, EPA

RREL, series includes Emerging Technology Bulletin, EPA/540/F-93/506;
Emerging Technology Summary, EPA/540/SR-93/505; and Journal Article,
AWMA, Vol. 43, No. 11, November 1993.
Opatken, E.J., H.K. Howard, and J.J. Bond, 1987. Biological Treatment of
Hazardous Aqueous Wastes, EPA Report EPA/600/D-87/184.
Opatken, E.J., H.K. Howard, and J.J. Bond, 1989. "Biological Treatment of
Leachate from a Superfund Site," Environmental Progress, Vol. 8, No. 1.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.443 10/31/00
4-175
Stinson, M., H. Skovronek, and T. Chresand, 1992. "EPA SITE

Demonstration of BioTrol Aqueous Treatment System," Journal of the Air
Waste Management Association, Vol. 41, No. 2, p. 228.
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
Hanscomb AFB, Alison Thomas Testing of constitutive 550 ppb TCE About
MA USAF TCE-degrading microbe 85 ppb NA
Tyndall AFB, FL
(904) 283-6303
MacGillis & Gibbs Dennis Chilcote SITE demo at Superfund 45 ppm PCP <1 ppm in <$0.92/1,000 L
New Brighton, MN BioTrol, Inc. site — BioTrol Aqueous one pass (<$3.50/1,000
10300 Valley View Rd. Treatment System (BATS) gallons)
Eden Prairie, MN 55344-
3456
(612) 942-8032
TCE Site Ronald Lewis SITE demo of immobilized TCE >100 ppm Low ppbs
St. Joseph, MI EPA RREL cell bioreactor (ICB)
26 West M.L. King Dr. biotreatment system,
Cincinnati, OH 45268 aerobic/anaerobic fixed film NA
(513) 569-7856 bioreactor
Fax: (513) 569-7620
Burleigh Tunnel Rick Brown Manmade wetland 50-60 ppm zinc 99%
Silver Plume, CO Colorado Dept. of Health ecosystem-based reduction in
4210 East 11th Ave. Room treatment 3 months NA
252
(303) 692-3383
Fax: (303) 759-5355
Dow Chemical Alison Thomas Chlorobenzene degradation140 ppm <5 ppb
Site, TX USAF in a fluid bed reactor chlorobenzene chloro- NA
Tyndall AFB benzene
Note: NA = not available
Points of Contact:
Edward Bates EPA RREL (513) 569-7774 26 West M.L. King Dr.
David Smith EPA, Region VIII (303) 293-1475 999 18th St.
Fax: (303) 294-1198 Denver, CO 80202
Edward J. Opatken EPA RREL (513) 569-7855 26 West M.L. King Dr.
Alison Thomas USAF (904) 283-6303 AL/EQW
Mary K. Stinson EPA RREL (908) 321-6683 2890 Woodbridge Ave.
MS-104
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.443 10/31/00
4-176
4.44 AIR STRIPPING
Description: Air stripping is a full-scale technology in which volatile organics are

partitioned from groundwater by greatly increasing the surface area of the
contaminated water exposed to air. Types of aeration methods include packed
towers, diffused aeration, tray aeration, and spray aeration.
4-44 TYPICAL AIR STRIPPING SYSTEM
Air stripping involves the mass transfer of volatile contaminants from water
to air. For groundwater remediation, this process is typically conducted in a
packed tower or an aeration tank. The typical packed tower air stripper
includes a spray nozzle at the top of the tower to distribute contaminated
water over the packing in the column, a fan to force air countercurrent to the
water flow, and a sump at the bottom of the tower to collect decontaminated
water. Auxiliary equipment that can be added to the basic air stripper
includes an air heater to improve removal efficiencies; automated control
systems with sump level switches and safety features, such as differential
pressure monitors, high sump level switches, and explosion-proof
components; and air emission control and treatment systems, such as
activated carbon units, catalytic oxidizers, or thermal oxidizers. Packed
tower air strippers are installed either as permanent installations on concrete
pads or on a skid or a trailer.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.444 10/31/00
4-177
Aeration tanks strip volatile compounds by bubbling air into a tank through
which contaminated water flows. A forced air blower and a distribution
manifold are designed to ensure air-water contact without the need for any
packing materials. The baffles and multiple units ensure adequate residence
time for stripping to occur. Aeration tanks are typically sold as continuously
operated skid-mounted units. The advantages offered by aeration tanks are
considerably lower profiles (less than 2 meters or 6 feet high) than packed
towers (5 to 12 meters or 15 to 40 feet high) where height may be a problem,
and the ability to modify performance or adapt to changing feed composition
by adding or removing trays or chambers. The discharge air from aeration
tanks can be treated using the same technology as for packed tower air
discharge treatment.
Air strippers can be operated continuously or in a batch mode where the air
stripper is intermittently fed from a collection tank. The batch mode ensures
consistent air stripper performance and greater energy efficiency than
continuously operated units because mixing in the storage tanks eliminates
any inconsistencies in feed water composition.
Applicability: Air stripping is used to separate VOCs from water. It is ineffective for inorganic
contaminants. Henry's law constant is used to determine whether air stripping will
be effective. Generally, organic compounds with constants greater than 0.01
3
atmospheres - m /mol are considered amenable to stripping. Some compounds that
have been successfully separated from water using air stripping include BTEX,
chloroethane, TCE, DCE, and PCE.
process:
· The potential exists for inorganic (e.g., iron greater than 5 ppm,
hardness greater than 800 ppm) or biological fouling of the equipment,
requiring pretreatment or periodic column cleaning.
· Consideration should be given to the Henry's law constant of the VOCs

in the water stream, and the type and amount of packing used in the
tower.
· Compounds with low volatility at ambient temperature may require

preheating of the groundwater.
· Off-gases may require treatment based on mass emission rate.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.444 10/31/00
4-178
4.44 AIR STRIPPING
Vendors require the following information to select the properly sized tower
for a specific application: range of feedwater flow rates; range of water and
air temperatures; whether the tower will operate continuously or
intermittently; tower feed and discharge systems (gravity feed or type and
location of pumps); height restrictions on the tower; influent contaminant
identification and concentrations; mineral content; pH; requirements for
effluent water contaminant concentrations; and restrictions on air discharge
from the tower.
Performance
Data: Removal efficiencies around 99% are typical for towers that have 4.6 to 6
meters (15 to 20 feet) of packing and are removing compounds amenable to
stripping. Removal efficiencies can be improved by adding a second air
stripper in series with the first, heating the contaminated water, increasing the
air/liquid ratio, or heating the air. Thermal units for treating air stripper
emissions can be used as a source of heat. The performance of aeration tanks
can be improved by adding chambers or trays, or by increasing the air supply,
depending on the design of the tank.
The major problem encountered with packed tower air strippers is fouling of
the packing, which reduces the air flow rate. Fouling is caused by oxidation
of minerals in the feed water, such as iron and magnesium, by precipitation of
calcium, and by biological growth on the packing material.
Cost: A major operating cost of air strippers is the electricity required for the
groundwater pump, the sump discharge pump, and the air blower. The power
rating of the groundwater pump and discharge pump depends on the pressure
head and pressure drop across the column and should be obtained from pump
curves. As a generalized rule, pumps in the 4 to 80 liters per minute (1 to 20-
gpm) range require from 0.33 to 2 HP; from 80 to 290 liters per minute (20
to 75 gpm) power ratings are 1 to 5 HP; and from 380 to 2,270 liters per
minute (100 to 600 gpm), power ratings range from 5 to 30 HP. A crude
method of estimating blower motor power assumes that each foot of air
stripper diameter requires 1.5 HP.
References: Dietrich, C., D. Treichler, and J. Armstrong, 1987. An Evaluation of Rotary

Air Stripping for Removal of Volatile Organics from Groundwater, USAF
Environmental and Service Center Report ESL-TR-86-46.
Elliott, M.G. and E.G. Marchand, 1990. "USAF Air Stripping and Emissions
Control Research," in Proceedings of the 14th Annual Army Environmental
Symposium, USATHAMA Report CETHA-TE-TR-90055.
Shukla, H.M. and R.E. Hicks, 1984. Process Design Manual for Stripping
of Organics, Water General Corporation for EPA, EPA/600/12-84/139, NTIS
PB 84 232628.
Singh, S.P., 1989. Air Stripping of Volatile Organic Compounds from
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.444 10/31/00
4-179
Groundwater: An Evaluation of a Centrifugal Vapor-Liquid Contractor,

USAF Environmental and Service Center Report ESL-TR-86-46.
Wilson, J.H., R.M. Counce, A.J. Lucero, H.L. Jennings, and S.P. Singh,
1991. Air Stripping and Emissions Control Technologies: Field Testing of
Counter Current Packings, Rotary Air Stripping, Catalytic Oxidation, and
Adsorption Materials, ESL TR 90-51.
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
9th Ave. Beth Fleming Bench scale unit to treat
Superfund Site USAE-WES VOCs in groundwater
Gary, IN Attn: CEWES-EE-S
3909 Halls Ferry Road NA NA NA
(601) 634-3943
Englin AFB Edward G. Marchand Field testing of rotary air >99%
HQ AFCESA/RAVW stripper — high iron content removal
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403- NA NA
5319
(904) 283-6023
DOE - Savannah 500-gpm air stripper, 11 15-ppm TCE, 6.7- Less than 1 $0.20/1,000 L
River Site NA wells ppm PCE TCE and ($0.75/1,000
PCE gallons)
Points of Contact:
Capt. Edward G. USAF (904) 283-6023 HQ AFCESA/RAV
Marchand Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-5319
Dr. James Heidman EPA RREL FTS 684-7632 26 West M.L. King Dr.
(513) 569-7632 Cincinnati, OH 45268
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.444 10/31/00
4-180
4.45 FILTRATION
Description: Filtration isolates solid particles by running a fluid stream through a porous
medium. The driving force is either gravity or a pressure differential across
the filtration medium. Pressure differentiated filtration techniques include
separation by centrifugal force, vacuum, or positive pressure. Installation of
filters in parallel is recommended so that groundwater extraction or injection
pumps do not have to stop operating when filters are changed.
4-45 TYPICAL SCHEMATIC FOR FILTRATION OF CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER
Applicability: Filtration is used mainly as a pretreatment or post-treatment process to remove

suspended solids or precipitated metals.
Limitations: Factors that may affect the process include:
· The presence of oil and grease may interfere with the system by
decreasing flow rate.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.445 10/31/00
4-181
Contaminant type and particle size will determine the filtration medium or
membrane to be used.
Performance
Data: Not available.
Cost: Typical costs for filtration range from $0.36 to $1.20 per 1,000 liters ($1.38
to $4.56 per 1,000 gallons) treated.
References: EPA, 1990. Dupont/Oberlin— Microfiltration System, series includes

Technology Evaluation, EPA/540/5-90/007, PB92-153410; Applications
Analysis, EPA/ 540/A5-90/007; Technology Demonstration Summary,
EPA/540/S5-90/007; and Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/M5-90/007.

EPA, 1992. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited— Chemical Treatment and

Ultrafiltration, Emerging Technology Bulletin, EPA/540/F-92/002.
EPA, 1992. SBP Technologies-Membrane Filtration, Demonstration

Bulletin, EPA/540/MR-92/014; and Applications Analysis, EPA/540/AR-
92/014.
EPA, 1993. Microfiltration Technology EPOC Water, Inc., Demonstration

MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.445 10/31/00
4-182
4.45 FILTRATION
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
American EPA RREL Positive pressure membrane PAHs, smaller 95%, <30% $500K - $1.2M
Creosote Works John Martin hyperfiltration unit phenolics removal annual
Pensacola, FL 26 West M.L. King Dr.
(513) 569-7758
Palmerton Zinc John Martin Pressure membrane Zinc and TSS 99.95% $213K - $549K
Superfund Site EPA RREL microfiltration — shallow average annual
Palmerton, PA (513) 569-7758 aquifer with dissolved heavy
metals
DOE Rocky Flats Annette Gatchett Colloid sorption filter for Uranium in 58-95% $150K cap +
Golden, CO EPA RREL metals and nontritium groundwater removal of $0.40 to
(513) 569-7697 radionuclides commercial influent at filtration uranium $0.53/1,000 L
scale SITE demo system ($1.50-
concentration 40- $2.00/1,000
100 mg/L gallons)
Points of Contact:
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.445 10/31/00
4-183
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.445 10/31/00
4-184
4.46 ION EXCHANGE
Description: Ion exchange removes ions from the aqueous phase by the exchange of
cations or anions between the contaminants and the exchange medium. Ion
exchange materials may consist of resins made from synthetic organic
materials that contain ionic functional groups to which exchangeable ions are
attached. They also may be inorganic and natural polymeric materials. After
the resin capacity has been exhausted, resins can be regenerated for re-use.
4-46 TYPICAL ION EXCHANGE AND ADSORPTION EQUIPMENT DIAGRAM
Applicability: Ion exchange can remove dissolved metals and radionuclides from aqueous
solutions. Other compounds that have been treated include nitrate, ammonia
nitrogen, and silicate.
Limitations: Factors that may affect the applicability and effectiveness of this process
include:
· Oil and grease in the groundwater may clog the exchange resin.
· Suspended solids content greater than 10 ppm may cause resin

blinding.
· The pH of the influent water may affect the ion exchange resin
selection.
· Oxidants in groundwater may damage the ion exchange resin.
· Wastewater is generated during the regeneration step and will require

additional treatment and disposal.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.446 10/31/00
4-185
Factors affecting the design of an ion exchange system include the presence
of oil and grease, suspended solids, metals, oxidants, inorganic ions in
groundwater; and pH of the groundwater.
Performance
Data: DOE has developed compact processing units (CPUs), or "modular waste
treatment units," which are relatively small mobile equipment modules. They
perform unit chemical process operations. The CPUs allow rapid deployment
of technologies for the treatment of radioactive wastes in underground storage
tanks. The modules would be manufactured off-site by commercial vendors
and moved into place using trucks or special transports. The concept of
having standardized modules is based on the notion that various radioactive
waste treatment subsystems could be standardized to match the CPU
hardware package, leading to more rapid, cost-effective deployment. The
cost benefits are realized even when multiple units are deployed to achieve
greater processing rates. The modular design concept will also allow for
reuse of CPU components for different unit processes or process
deployments.
The ion-exchange CPU will pump undiluted liquid tank waste from an
underground storage tank or receive liquid waste from a waste retrieval
system for treatment. DOE Northwest Laboratories developed the CPU
concept in FY91. Development of a cesium ion-exchange CPU technology is
scheduled for 1996. A radioactive waste treatment demonstration is
scheduled for FY97.
Another DOE technology, the resorcinol-formaldehyde ion exchange (ReFIX)

resin, is being developed for prototype demonstration at the Hanford site in
FY97. ReFIX resin is applicable to high-level wastestreams containing
cesium-supernate salt solutions.
Cost: The cost for a typical ion exchange system ranges from $0.08 to $0.21 per
1,000 liters ($0.30 to $0.80 per 1,000 gallons) treated. Key cost factors
include:
· Pretreatment requirements.
· Discharge requirements and resin utilization.
· Regenerant used and efficiency.
References: DOE, 1993. Technology Name: Cesium Removal by Compact Processing

Units for Radioactive Waste Treatment, Technology Information Profile
(Rev. 2) for ProTech, DOE ProTech Database, TTP Reference No.:
RL-321221.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.446 10/31/00
4-186
4.46 ION EXCHANGE
DOE, 1993. Technology Name: Resorcinol-Formaldehyde Ion Exchange

Resin for Elutable Ion Exchange in the Compact Portable Units (CPUs)
Proposed at Hanford, Technology Information Profile (Rev. 2) for ProTech,
DOE ProTech Database, TTP Reference No.: SR-1320-02.

Points of Contact:
John Burckle EPA (513) 569-7506 26 West M.L. King Dr.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.446 10/31/00
4-187
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.446 10/31/00
4-188
4.47 LIQUID PHASE CARBON ADSORPTION
Description: Liquid phase carbon adsorption is a full-scale technology in which

groundwater is pumped through a series of vessels containing activated
carbon to which dissolved contaminants adsorb. When the concentration of
contaminants in the effluent from the bed exceeds a certain level, the carbon
can be regenerated in place; removed and regenerated at an off-site facility; or
removed and disposed of. Carbon used for explosives- or metals-
contaminated groundwater probably cannot be regenerated and should be
removed and properly disposed of. Adsorption by activated carbon has a
long history of use in treating municipal, industrial, and hazardous wastes.
4-47 TYPICAL FIXED-BED CARBON ADSORPTION SYSTEM
The two most common reactor configurations for carbon adsorption systems
are the fixed bed (see figure) and the pulsed or moving bed. The fixed-bed
configuration is the most widely used for adsorption from liquids. Suspended
solids in a liquid stream may accumulate in the column, causing an increase
in pressure drop. When the pressure drop becomes too high, the accumulated
solids must be removed, for example, by backwashing. The solids removal
process necessitates adsorber downtime and may result in carbon loss and
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.447 10/31/00
4-189
disruption of the mass transfer zone. Pretreatment for removal of solids from
streams to be treated is, therefore, an important design consideration.
Carbon can be used in conjunction with the steam reforming. Steam

reforming is a technology designed to destroy halogenated solvents (such as
carbon tetrachloride, CCl4, and chloroform, CHCl3) adsorbed on activated
carbon by reaction with superheated steam in a commercial reactor (the
Synthetica Detoxifier).
Applicability: The target contaminant groups for carbon adsorption are SVOCs and explosives.
Limited effectiveness may be achieved on halogenated VOCs, fuels, and pesticides.
Liquid phase carbon adsorption is effective for removing contaminants at low
concentrations (less than 10 mg/L) from water at nearly any flow rate, and for
removing higher concentrations of contaminants from water at low flow rates
(typically 2 to 4 liters per minute or 0.5 to 1 gpm). Carbon adsorption is
particularly effective for polishing water discharges from other remedial
technologies to attain regulatory compliance. Carbon adsorption systems can be
deployed rapidly, and contaminant removal efficiencies are high. Logistic and
economic disadvantages arise from the need to transport and decontaminate spent
carbon.
process:
· The presence of multiple contaminants can impact process

performance. Single component isotherms may not be applicable for
mixtures. Bench tests may be conducted to estimate carbon usage for
mixtures.
· Metals can foul the system.
· Costs are high if used as the primary treatment on wastestreams with

high contaminant concentration levels.
· Type and pore size of the carbon, as well as the operating temperature,
will impact process performance. Vendor expertise for carbon
selection should be consulted.
· Carbon used for explosives-contaminated groundwater is not

regenerated; it must be properly disposed of.
· Water-soluble compounds and small molecules are not adsorbed well.
The major design variables for liquid phase carbon applications are empty
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.447 10/31/00
4-190
4.47 LIQUID PHASE CARBON ADSORPTION
bed contact time (EBCT), usage rate, and system configuration. Particle size
and hydraulic loading are often chosen to minimize pressure drop and reduce
or eliminate backwashing. System configuration and EBCT have an impact
on carbon usage rate. When the bed life is longer than 6 months and the
treatment objective is stringent (Ce/Co<0.05), a single adsorber or a
combination of single beds operating in parallel is preferred. For a single
adsorber, the EBCT is normally chosen to be large enough to minimize
carbon usage rate. When less stringent objectives are required (Ce/Co<0.3),
blending of effluents from partially saturated adsorbers can be used to reduce
carbon replacement rate. When stringent treatment objectives are required
(Ce/Co<0.05) and bed life is short (less than 6 months), multiple beds in series
may be used to decrease carbon usage rate.
Performance
Data: Adsorption by activated carbon has a long history of use as a treatment for
municipal, industrial, and hazardous wastestreams. The concepts, theory,
and engineering aspects of the technology are well developed. It is a proven
technology with documented performance data. Carbon adsorption is a
relatively nonspecific adsorbent and is effective for removing many organic,
explosive, and some inorganic contaminants from liquid and gaseous streams.
Cost: Costs associated with GAC are dependent on wastestream flow rates, type of
contaminant, concentrations, and site and timing requirements. Costs are
lower with lower concentration levels of a contaminant of a given type. Costs
are also lower at higher flow rates. At flow rates of 0.4 million liters per day
(0.1 mgd), costs increase to $0.32 to $1.70 per 1,000 liters ($1.20 to $6.30
per 1,000 gallons) treated.
References: EPA, 1986. Mobile Treatment Technologies for Superfund Wastes,

EPA/540/2-86/003.

EPA, 1993. Approaches for the Remediation of Federal Facility Sites

Contaminated with Explosive or Radioactive Wastes, EPA/625/R-93/013.
Zappi, M.E., B.C. Fleming, and C.L. Teetar, 1992. Draft - Treatability of
Contaminated Groundwater from the Lang Superfund Site,USAE-WES.
Zappi, M.E., C.L. Teeter, B.C. Fleming, and N.R. Francingues, 1991.
Treatability of Ninth Avenue Superfund Site Groundwater, WES Report EL-
91-8.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.447 10/31/00
4-191
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
Verona Wellfield Superfund - GAC as 12,850 ppb TVOC 11 ppb
Battle Creek, MI NA pretreatment for air stripper. NA
U.S. Coast Guard NA Pump/treat and discharge to 10,329 ppb <10 ppb NA
Traverse City, MI municipal sewer. Toluene
Love Canal NA GAC system for leachate 28,000 ppb <10 ppb NA
Niagara Falls, NY treatment. Benzene
Milan AAP USAEC ETD Pilot scale study of GAC for 1.0 - 2.0 mg/L total ND (<10 ppb)
Milan, TN (410) 671-2054 explosives- contaminated explosives for all 9 NA
groundwater. explosives
Points of Contact:
Dr. James Heidman EPA RREL FTS 684-7632 26 West M.L. King Dr.
(513) 569-7632 Cincinnati, OH 45268
David Biancosino DOE (301) 903-7961 EM-551, Trevion II
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.447 10/31/00
4-192
4.48 PRECIPITATION
Description: Precipitation of metals has long been the primary method of treating metal-
laden industrial wastewaters. As a result of the success of metals
precipitation in such applications, the technology is being considered and
selected for use in remediating groundwater containing heavy metals,
including their radioactive isotopes. In groundwater treatment applications,
the metal precipitation process is often used as a pretreatment for other
treatment technologies (such as chemical oxidation or air stripping) where the
presence of metals would interfere with the other treatment processes.
4-48 TYPICAL METALS PRECIPITATION PROCESS
Metals precipitation from contaminated water involves the conversion of

soluble heavy metal salts to insoluble salts that will precipitate. The
precipitate can then be removed from the treated water by physical methods
such as clarification (settling) and/or filtration.
This process transforms dissolved contaminant into an insoluble solid,

facilitating the contaminant's subsequent removal from the liquid phase by
sedimentation or filtration. The process usually uses pH adjustment, addition
of a chemical precipitant, and flocculation. Typically, metals precipitate from
the solution as hydroxides, sulfides, or carbonates. The solubilities of the
specific metal contaminants and the required cleanup standards will dictate
the process used.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.448 10/31/00
4-193
Applicability: Precipitation is used mainly for metals.
Limitations: Disadvantages of metals precipitation may include:
· As with any pump and treat process, if the source of contamination is

not removed (as in metals absorbed to soil), treatment of the
groundwater may be superfluous.
· The presence of multiple metal species may lead to removal difficulties

as a result of amphoteric natures of different compounds (i.e.,
optimization on one metal species may prevent removal of another).
· As discharge standards become more stringent, further treatment may

be required.
· Metal hydroxide sludges must pass TCLP prior to land disposal.
· Reagent addition must be carefully controlled to preclude unacceptable

concentrations in treatment effluent.
· Efficacy of the system relies on adequate solids separation techniques

(e.g., clarification, flocculation, and/or filtration).
· Process may generate toxic sludge requiring proper disposal.
· Process can be costly, depending on reagents used, required system

controls, and required operator involvement in system operation.
· Dissolved salts are added to the treated water as a result of pH

adjustment.
· Polymer may be added to the water to achieve adequate settling of

solids.
· Treated water will often require pH adjustment.
Bench-scale treatability tests should be conducted to determine operating

parameters and characteristics [i.e., reagent type and dosage, optimum pH,
retention time, flow rate, temperature, mixing requirements, flocculent
(polymer) selection, suspended solids, precipitate settling and filtration rates,
and sludge volume and characteristics].
Performance
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.448 10/31/00
4-194
4.48 PRECIPITATION
Data: Precipitation of heavy metals as the metal hydroxides or sulfides has been
practiced as the prime method of treatment for heavy metals in industrial
wastewater for many years. More recently, precipitation (usually as the
metal hydroxides) has been used in the electronics and electroplating
industries as a pretreatment technology for wastewater discharge to a publicly
owned treatment works (POTW). Metals precipitation is widely used to meet
NPDES requirements for the treatment of heavy metal-containing
wastewaters.
Because of its success in meeting requirements for discharge of treated

wastewater, metals precipitation is recognized as a proven process for use in
remedial activities such as groundwater treatment. Precipitation (combined
with sedimentation, and/or flocculation and filtration) is becoming the most
widely selected means for heavy metals removal from groundwater in pump
and treat operations.
Cost: The primary capital cost factor is design flow rate. Capital costs for 75- and
250-liters-per-minute (20-gpm and 65-gpm) packaged metals precipitation
systems are approximately $85,000 and $115,000, respectively.
The primary factors affecting operating costs are labor and chemical costs.
Operating costs (excluding sludge disposal) are typically in a range from
$0.08 to $0.18 per 1,000 liters ($0.30 to $0.70 per 1,000 gallons) of
groundwater containing up to 100 mg/L of metals.
For budgetary purposes, sludge disposal may be estimated to increase

operating costs by approximately $0.13 per 1,000 liters ($0.50 per 1,000
gallons) of groundwater treated. Actual sludge disposal costs (including
fixation and transportation) have been estimated at approximately $330 per
metric ton ($300 per ton) of sludge.
Costs for performing a laboratory treatability study for metals precipitation

may range from $5,000 to $20,000. Depending on the degree of uncertainty
or other requirements, a pilot or field demonstration may be needed.
Associated costs may range from $50,000 to $250,000 (depending on scale,
analytical requirements, and duration).
References: Balaso, C.A., et al., 1986. Soluble Sulfide Precipitation Study, Arthur D.
Little, Inc., Final Report to USATHAMA, Report No. AMXTH-TE-CR-
87106.
Bricka, R. Mark, 1988. Investigation and Evaluation of the Performance of

Solidified Cellulose and Starch Xanthate Heavy Metal Sludges, USACE-
WES Technical Report EL-88-5.
EPA, 1980. Control and Treatment Technology for the Metal Finishing
Industry: Sulfide Precipitation, EPA/625/8-80/003.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.448 10/31/00
4-195

MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.448 10/31/00
4-196
4.48 PRECIPITATION
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
Coakley Landfill Pretreatment of groundwater Cr - 330 ppb Cr - 50 ppb
New Hampshire by hydroxide precipitation Ni - 122-200 ppb Ni - 100 ppb
NA with lime, then air stripping As - 10-90 ppb As - 50 ppb NA
for removal of VOCs
Stringfellow Acid Pretreatment for the removal Cr - 1.5-270 ppm Cr - 0.5 ppm
Pit Site NA of metals and organics, then Cd - 0.32-9.3 ppm Cd - 0.11 ppm
California POTW Zn - 2.2-300 ppm Zn - 2.61 ppm NA
Cu - 1.7-20 ppm Cu - 2 ppm
Winthrop Landfill Pilot test of metals from the As - 0.1-0.8 ppm As - 0.05 ppm
Winthrop, ME NA groundwater by precipitation Ni - 0.04 ppm Ni - 0.04 ppm NA
Zn - 0.2-0.6 ppm Zn - 0.18 ppm
Points of Contact:
Dr. D.B. Chan NFESC (805) 982-4191 Code 411
Mark Bricka USAE-WES (601) 634-3700 CEWES-EE-S
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.448 10/31/00
4-197
4.49 ULTRAVIOLET (UV) OXIDATION
Description: UV oxidation is a destruction process that oxidizes organic and explosive

constituents in wastewaters by the addition of strong oxidizers and irradiation
with UV light. The oxidation reactions are achieved through the synergistic
action of UV light, in combination with ozone (O3) and/or hydrogen peroxide
(H2O2). If complete mineralization is achieved, the final products of
oxidation are carbon dioxide, water, and salts. The main advantage of UV
oxidation is that it is a destruction process, as opposed to air stripping or
carbon adsorption, for which contaminants are extracted and concentrated in
a separate phase. UV oxidation processes can be configured in batch or
continuous flow modes, depending on the throughput under consideration.
4-49 TYPICAL UV/OXIDATION GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
Applicability: Practically any organic contaminant that is reactive with the hydroxyl radical can
potentially be treated. A wide variety of organic and explosive contaminants are
susceptible to destruction by UV/oxidation, including petroleum hydrocarbons;
chlorinated hydrocarbons used as industrial solvents and cleaners; and ordnance
compounds such as TNT, RDX, and HMX. In many cases, chlorinated
hydrocarbons that are resistant to biodegradation may be effectively treated by
UV/oxidation. Typically, easily oxidized organic compounds, such as those with
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.449 10/31/00
4-197
double bonds (e.g., TCE, PCE, and vinyl chloride), as well as simple aromatic
compounds (e.g., toluene, benzene, xylene, and phenol), are rapidly destroyed in
UV/oxidation processes.
Limitations: Limitations of UV/oxidation include:
· The aqueous stream being treated must provide for good transmission
of UV light (high turbidity causes interference). This factor can be
critical for UV/H2O2 than UV/O3. (Turbidity does not affect direct
chemical oxidation of the contaminant by H2O2 or O3.)
· Free radical scavengers can inhibit contaminant destruction efficiency.

Excessive dosages of chemical additives may act as a scavenger.
· The aqueous stream to be treated by UV/oxidation should be relatively

free of heavy metal ions (less than 10 mg/L) and insoluble oil or grease
to minimize the potential for fouling of the quartz sleeves.
· When UV/O3 is used on volatile organics such as TCA, the

contaminants may be volatilized (e.g., "stripped") rather than
destroyed. They would then have to be removed from the off-gas by
activated carbon adsorption or catalytic oxidation.
· Costs may be higher than competing technologies because of energy

requirements.
· Pretreatment of the aqueous stream may be required to minimize

ongoing cleaning and maintenance of UV reactor and quartz sleeves.
· Handling and storage of oxidizers require special safety precautions.
Design and operational parameters include contact or retention time, oxidizer

influent dosages, pH, temperature, UV lamp intensity, and various catalysts.
Performance
Data: The UV/oxidation is an innovative groundwater treatment technology that has
been used in full-scale groundwater treatment application for more than 10
years. Currently, UV/oxidation processes are in operation in more than 15
full-scale remedial applications. A majority of these applications are for
groundwater contaminated with petroleum products or with a variety of
industrial solvent-related organics such as TCE, DCE, TCA, and vinyl
chloride.
A wide range of sizes of UV/oxidation systems are commercially available.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.449 10/31/00
4-198
4.49 ULTRAVIOLET (UV) OXIDATION
Single-lamp benchtop reactors that can be operated in batch or continuous

modes are available for the performance of treatability studies. Pilot and full-
scale systems are available to handle higher throughput (e.g., 3,800 to
3,800,000 liters or 1,000 to 1,000,000 gallons per day).
Cost: Costs generally are between $0.03 to $3.00 per 1,000 liters ($0.10 to $10.00
per 1,000 gallons). Factors that influence the cost to implementing
UV/oxidation include:
· Types and concentration of contaminants (as they affect oxidizer

selection, oxidizer dosage, UV light intensity, and treatment time).
· Degree of contaminant destruction required.
· Desired water flow rates.
· Requirements for pretreatment and/or post-treatment.
References: Buhts, R., P. Malone, and D. Thompson, 1978. Evaluation of Ultra-

Violet/Ozone Treatment of Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA) Groundwater,
USAE-WES Technical Report No. Y-78-1.
Christman, P.L. and A.M. Collins, April 1990. "Treatment of Organic

Contaminated Groundwater by Using Ultraviolet Light and Hydrogen
Peroxide," in Proceedings of the Annual Army Environmental Symposium,
USATHAMA Report CETHA-TE-TR-90055.
EPA, 1989. Ultrox International — UV Ozone Treatment for Liquids, EPA

RREL, series includes Technology Evaluation, EPA/540/5-89/012, PB90-
198177; Applications Analysis, EPA/540/A5-89/012; Technology
Demonstration Summary, EPA/540/S5-89/012; and Demonstration Bulletin,
EPA/540/MS-89/012.

EPA, 1993. Magnum Water Technology — CAV-OX Ultraviolet Oxidation

Process, EPA RREL, Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/MR-93/520; and
Applications Analysis, EPA/540/AR-93/520.
EPA, 1993. Perox-PureTM Chemical Oxidation Treatment, EPA RREL,

series includes Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/MR-93/501; Applications
Analysis, EPA/540/AR-93/501; Technology Evaluation, EPA/540/R-93/501,
PB93-213528; and Technology Demonstration Summary, EPA/540/SR-
93/501.
EPA, 1993. PURUS, Inc. — Destruction of Organic Contaminants in Air

Using Advanced Ultraviolet Flashlamps, EPA RREL, series includes
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.449 10/31/00
4-199
Emerging Technology Bulletin, EPA/540/F-93/501; Emerging Technology

Summary, EPA/540/SR-93/516; and Emerging Technology Report,
EPA/540/R-93/516, PB93-205383.
Zappi, M.E., et al., April 1990. "Treatability Study of Four Contaminated

Waters at Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Commerce City, Colorado, Using
Oxidation with Ultra-Violet Radiation Catalyzation," in Proceedings of the
14th Annual Army Environmental Symposium, USATHAMA Report
CETHA-TE-TR-90055.
Zappi, M.E. and B.C. Fleming, 1991. Treatability of Contaminated

Groundwater from the Lang Superfund Site, Draft WES Report, USAE-
WES, Vicksburg, MS.
Zappi, M.E., B.C. Fleming, and M.J. Cullinane, 1992. "Treatment of

Contaminated Groundwater Using Chemical Oxidation," in Proceedings of
the 1992 ASCE Water Forum Conference, Baltimore, MD.
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
Munitions Laura Yeh, NFESC Bench-scale TNT and RDX 7 ppm TNT; 600 0.25 ppb; <$0.40 per
Washout Lagoon Code 411 treatability test. ppb RDX 0.50 ppb 1,000 L
Submarine Base Port Hueneme, CA 93043 Recirculating UV/ozone (<$1.50/1,000
Bangor, WA (805) 982-1660 reactor. 30-minute retention. gallons)
Winthrop Dr. Raymond Machacek On-site demo - pretreat for 5 ppm DMF 5 ppb
Superfund Site, Arthur D. Little, Inc. iron, then UV/oxidation NA
ME (617) 498-5580 solvents.
Milan AAP USAEC ETD Pilot scale tests of UV/OX 20.0 ppm total ND (<10 ppb)
Milan, TN (410) 671-2054 for explosives-contaminated explosives for all NA
groundwater. explosives
Points of Contact:
Mark E. Zappi USAE WES (601) 634-2856 3903 Halls Ferry Road
Steve Maloney USACE-CERL (217) 352-6511 P.O. Box 9005
(800) USA-CERL Champaign, IL 61826-9005
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.449 10/31/00
4-200
Description: Natural subsurface processes — such as dilution, volatilization,

biodegradation, adsorption, and chemical reactions with subsurface
materials — are allowed to reduce contaminant concentrations to acceptable
levels. Natural attenuation is not a "technology" per se, and there is
significant debate among technical experts about its use at hazardous waste
sites. Consideration of this option requires modeling and evaluation of
contaminant degradation rates and pathways. The primary objective of site
modeling is to demonstrate that natural processes of contaminant degradation
will reduce contaminant concentrations below regulatory standards before
potential exposure pathways are completed. In addition, sampling and
sample analysis must be conducted throughout the process to confirm that
degradation is proceeding at rates consistent with meeting cleanup objectives.
4-50 TYPICAL MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION DIAGRAM
Natural attenuation is not the same as "no action," although it often is

perceived as such. CERCLA requires evaluation of a "no action" alternative
but does not require evaluation of natural attenuation. Natural attenuation is
considered in the Superfund program on a case-by-case basis, and guidance
on its use is still evolving. It has been selected at Superfund sites where, for
example, removal of DNAPLs has been determined to be technically
impracticable (Superfund is developing technical impracticability (TI)
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.450 10/31/00
4-201
OTHER WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
guidance); and where it has been determined that active remedial measures
would be unable to significantly speed remediation time frames. Where
contaminants are expected to remain in place over long periods of time, TI
waivers must be obtained. In all cases, extensive site characterization is
required.
The attitude toward natural attenuation varies among agencies. USAF

carefully evaluates the potential for use of natural attenuation at its sites;
however, EPA accepts its use only in certain special cases.
Applicability: Target contaminants for natural attenuation are nonhalogenated VOCs and SVOCs
and fuel hydrocarbons. Halogenated VOCs and SVOCs and pesticides also can be
allowed to naturally attenuate, but the process may be less effective and may be
applicable to only some compounds within these contaminant groups.
Limitations: Factors that may limit applicability and effectiveness include:
· Data must be collected to determine model input parameters.
· Intermediate degradation products may be more mobile and more toxic

than the original contaminant.
· Natural attenuation should be used only in low-risk situations.
· Contaminants may migrate before they are degraded.
· The site may have to be fenced and may not be available for reuse until
contaminant levels are reduced.
· If free product exists, it may have to be removed.
· Some inorganics can be immobilized, such as mercury, but they will

not be degraded.
Many potential suppliers can perform the modeling, sampling, and sample
analysis required for justifying and monitoring natural attenuation. The
extent of contaminant degradation depends on a variety of parameters, such
as contaminant types and concentrations, temperature, moisture, and
availability of nutrients/electron acceptors (e.g., oxygen, nitrate).
When available, information to be obtained during data review includes:
· Soil and groundwater quality data:
- Three-dimensional distribution of residual-, free-, and dissolved-

phase contaminants. The distribution of residual- and free-phase
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.450 10/31/00
4-202
contaminants will be used to define the dissolved-phase plume

source area.
- Groundwater and soil geotechnical data.
- Historical water quality data showing variations in contaminant

concentrations through time.
- Chemical and physical characteristics of the contaminants.
- Potential for biodegradation of the contaminants.
· Geologic and hydrogeologic data:
- Lithology and stratigraphic relationships.

- Grain-size distribution (sand versus silt versus clay).
- Aquifer hydraulic conductivity.
- Flow gradient.
- Preferential flow paths.
- Interaction between groundwater and surface water.
· Location of potential receptors:
- Groundwater wells.
- Surface water discharge points.
Performance
Data: Natural attenuation has been selected by AFCEE for remediation at 45 sites.
Cost: There are costs for modeling contamination degradation rates, to determine
whether natural attenuation is a feasible remedial alternative, for subsurface
sampling and sample analysis (potentially extensive) to determine the extent
of contamination and confirm contaminant degradation rates and cleanup
status, and for migration and degradation monitoring.
References: Barker, J.F., et al., 1987. "Natural Attenuation of Aromatic Hydrocarbons in

a Shallow Sand Aquifer," Groundwater Monitoring Review, Winter 1987.
Bredehoeft, J.D., and L.F. Konikow, 1993. "Ground-Water Models - Validate

or Invalidate," Ground Water, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 178-179.
Bruce, L., T. Miller, and B. Hockman, 1991. "Solubility Versus Equilibrium

Saturation of Gasoline Compounds - A Method To Estimate Fuel/Water
Partition Coefficient Using Solubility or Koc", in Proceedings of the
NWWA/API Conference on Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Ground Water, A.
Stanley, Editor, NWWA/API, pp. 571-582.
Chiang, C.Y., J.P. Salanitro, E.Y. Chai, J.D. Colthart, and C.L. Klein, 1989.
"Aerobic Biodegradation of Benzene, Toluene, and Xylene in a Sandy Aquifer
- Data Analysis and Computer Modeling, Ground Water, Vol. 27, No. 6, pp.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.450 10/31/00
4-203
823-834.
Lee, M.D., 1988. "Biorestoration of Aquifers Contaminated with Organic

Compounds," CRC Critical Reviews in Environmental Control, Vol. 18, pp.
29-89.
MacIntyre, W.G., M. Boggs, C.P. Antworth, and T.B. Staufer, 1993.

"Degradation Kinetics of Aromatic Organic Solutes Introduced into a
Heterogeneous Aquifer," Water Resources Research, Vol. 29, No. 12,
pp. 4045-4051.
Weidemeier, T.H., P.R. Guest, R.L. Henry, and C.B. Keith, 1993. "The Use
of Bioplume To Support Regulatory Negotiations at a Fuel Spill Site Near
Denver, Colorado," in Proceedings of the Petroleum Hydrocarbons and
Organic Chemicals in Groundwater Prevention, Detection, and Restoration
Conference, NWWA/API, pp. 445-449.
Weidemeier, T.H., B. Blicker, and P.R. Guest, 1994b. "Risk-Based Approach

to Bioremediation of Fuel Hydrocarbons at a Major Airport," in Proceedings
of the Federal Environmental Restoration III & Waste Minimization
Conference & Exhibition.
Weidemeier, T.H., D.C. Downey, J.T. Wilson, D.H. Kampbell, R.N. Miller,
and J.E. Hansen, 1994. Technical Protocol for Implementing the Intrinsic
Remediation (Natural attenuation) with Long-Term Monitoring Option for
Dissolved-Phase Fuel Contamination in Ground Water, AFCEE, San
Antonio, TX.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.450 10/31/00
4-204
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
Columbus Tom deVenoge, USAF Controlled releases of various

AFB, MS Tyndall AFB, FL hydrocarbons were extensively
(904) 283-6205 monitored and modeled over NA NA NA
time
Hill AFB, VT AFCEE NA NA NA NA
Eglin AFB, FL AFCEE NA NA NA NA
Points of Contact:
Contact Gov Agency Phone Location
Tom deVenoge USAF (904) 283-6205 AL/EQW Tyndall AFB, FL 32403
Technology Demonstration and USAEC (410) 671-2054 SFIM-AEC-ETD

Transfer Branch Fax: (410) 612-6836 APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.450 10/31/00
4-205
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.450 10/31/00
4-206
4.51 BIOFILTRATION
Description: Biofiltration is a full-scale technology in which vapor-phase organic

contaminants are passed through a soil bed and sorb to the soil surface where
they are degraded by microorganisms in the soil. Specific strains of bacteria
may be introduced into the filter and optimal conditions provided to
preferentially degrade specific compounds. The biofilter provides several
advantages over conventional activated carbon adsorbers. First, bio-
regeneration keeps the maximum adsorption capacity available constantly;
thus, the mass transfer zone remains stationary and relatively short. The
filter does not require regeneration, and the required bed length is greatly
reduced. These features reduce capital and operating expenses. Additionally,
the contaminants are destroyed not just separated, as with GAC technologies.
4-51 TYPICAL METHANOTROPHIC BIOFILM REACTOR DIAGRAM

Applicability: As with other biological treatment processes, biofiltration is highly dependent
upon the biodegradability of the contaminants. Under proper conditions,
biofilters can remove virtually all selected contaminants to harmless products.
Biofiltration is used primarily to treat nonhalogenated VOCs and fuel
hydrocarbons. Halogenated VOCs also can be treated, but the process may
be less effective. Biofilters have been successfully used to control odors from
compost piles.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.451 10/31/00
4-207
AIR EMISSIONS/OFF -GAS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
process:
· The rate of influent air flow is constrained by the size of the biofilter.
· Fugitive fungi may be a problem.
· Low temperatures may slow or stop removal unless the biofilter is

climate-controlled.
(Data Requirements for Air Emissions/Off-Gases).
Performance
Data: Nonproprietary filters that require low air loading rates for organics (? 100
ppm) have been used successfully for more than 20 years. Proprietary
designs that support higher air loadings also are available. Biofilters have
been used extensively in Europe and Japan, but only recently have they
received attention in the United States.
Moisture levels, pH, temperature, and other filter conditions may have to be
monitored to maintain high removal efficiencies. Filter flooding and plugging
as a result of excessive biomass accumulation may require periodic
mechanical cleaning of the filter.
Cost: Cost estimates range from $5 to $10 per kilogram of contaminant ($2.27 to
$4.54 per pound).
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.451 10/31/00
4-208
BIOFILTRATION
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
SITE Emerging Naomi Barkley Bench-scale 10-20 ppm > 95%

Technology EPA RREL "bioscrubber" Toluene removal
(Membrane 26 West M.L. King Dr. NA
Technology and Cincinnati, OH 45268
Process, Inc.) (513) 569-7854
Fax: (513) 569-7620
SITE Emerging Fred Bishop Immobilized film 10-1,000

Technology EPA RREL bioreactor (gas- ppm VOCs NA NA
(Remediation (513) 569-7629 phase biofilter at
Technologies, Inc.) Fax: (513) 569-7105 bench and pilot-
scale)
Points of Contact:

MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.451 10/31/00
4-209
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.451 10/31/00
4-210
4.52 HIGH ENERGY CORONA
Description: The High Energy Corona (HEC) technology is being developed by DOE as
one of many approaches toward decontaminating soil off-gases prior to
atmospheric release. The objective of the HEC technology is to provide a
standalone, field-portable means of treating soil off-gases produced during
soil treatment operations.
4-52 TYPICAL LOW TEMPERATURE PLASMA REACTOR
The HEC process uses high-voltage electricity to destroy VOCs at room

temperature. The equipment consists of the following: an HEC reactor in
which the VOCs are destroyed; inlet and outlet piping containing process
instrumentation to measure humidity, temperature, pressure, contaminant
concentration, and mass flow rate; a means for controlling inlet flow rates
and inlet humidity; and a secondary scrubber.
The HEC reactor is a glass tube filled with glass beads through which the
pretreated contaminated off-gas is passed. Each reactor is 2 inches in
diameter, 4 ft long, and weighs less than 20 pounds. A high voltage electrode
is placed along the centerline of the reactor, and a grounded metal screen is
attached to the outer glass surface of the reactor. A high-voltage power
supply is connected across the electrodes to provide 0 to 50 mA of 60-Hz
electricity at 30 kV. The electrode current and power depend upon the type
and concentration of contaminant.
The technology is packaged in a self-contained mobile trailer that includes

gas handling equipment and on-line analytical capabilities. Installation
consists of connecting inlet and outlet hoses to the HEC process trailer.
Training in the use of the equipment can usually be accomplished well within
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.452 10/31/00
4-211
1 hour. Failure control is provided by a combination of automated and

manually activated means, addressing electrical failure, loss of flow, and loss
of VOC containment caused by breakage of the glass reactor vessel. The
HEC process can be operated with little, if any, maintenance required.
Neither catastrophic failure nor any diminishing in levels of performance
have been observed through months of periodic operation in the laboratory.
The on-line gas chromatograph and process instruments do require periodic
recalibration to ensure data quality.
Applicability: Contaminants that can be treated include most or all VOCs and SVOCs. The
potential also exists for treating inorganic compounds, such as oxides of
nitrogen and oxides of sulfur. This technique is specifically useful for
destroying organics and chlorinated solvents such as trichloroethylene (TCE),
tetrachloroethylene (PCE), carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, diesel fuel, and
gasoline. Both gas and liquid phase contaminants are treatable.
Limitations: Continued research and development (R&D) is planned to accomplish the

following: fully characterize the reactor emissions to complete mass balances;
adapt the HEC process to complete real-time control; better understand the
physical and chemical phenomena that make the HEC process work; develop
larger reactors; and optimize the hardware and packaging associated with the
technology for specific, as well as modular or generic, treatment applications.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.3 (Data
Requirements for Air Emissions/Off-Gases).
Performance
Data: The HEC technology can destroy more than 99.9% TCE. The technology
destroys PCE to a level of 90 to 95%. In preliminary tests with heptane,
destruction levels appear to be extremely high, but have not been quantified.
When chlorinated VOCs are treated, water containing either sodium
hydroxide or baking soda is recirculated in a scrubber to remove acid gases,
hydrochloric acid, and chlorine from the reactor effluent. It should also be
noted that further contaminant destruction appears likely in this wet scrubber.
This is presumably because of strong gaseous oxidants that exit the HEC
reactor. Typical outlet properties would be nondetectable concentrations of
TCE, ozone, hydrochloric acid, phosgene, and chlorine, with up to 1 ppmv
NOx (below regulatory limits). Air exits the HEC process at temperatures of
100 ? C or lower or slightly above ambient temperature if a wet scrubber is
used. A scrub solution (containing less than 10-wt% sodium chloride in
water) is produced when chlorinated VOCs are treated.
One reactor processes up to 5 scfm of soil off-gas. The HEC field-scale

process demonstrated at Savannah River uses 21 HEC reactors in parallel to
treat up to 105 scfm of contaminated off-gas. A typical application will
involve an inlet stream containing 1,800 ppmb of TCE in humid air at 10 to
20 ? C. Power input is typically 50 to 150 W/scfm being processed. For dry
inlet streams, deionized water is added as steam to produce an inlet humidity
(hr) of 60 to 80%. Less than 20 mL per minute of water is required to
humidify a completely dry stream at a flow of 105 scfm. For water-saturated
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.452 10/31/00
4-212
4.52 HIGH ENERGY CORONA
inlet streams, the stream is preheated (using electric heaters) to lower the hr
from 100% to 80%. In many cases, the vapor-extraction blower associated
with retrieving the VOCs from soil will sufficiently preheat the soil off-gas to
80% or lower so that no further preheating is required.
Discussions with manufacturers/licensees have been initiated with the belief

that HEC is now ready for commercial availability. The 105-scfm field
prototype is available now for commercial testing and evaluation. Pacific
Northwest Laboratory (PNL) is continuing R&D to improve and scale the
technology. Scaleup to 50 scfm per reactor seems feasible for extremely
large applications.
Cost: Initial outlay for a 105 scfm process, the prototype field treatment system, is
$50,000. As with any other technology, large-scale production and
customization would significantly reduce costs, perhaps to as low as
$20,000. Labor requirements are projected as 0.25 fulltime equivalent.
Energy requirements are $27 per day, or roughly $0.35 per pound of
contaminant. Total cost is roughly $10 per pound of contaminant, including
a 25% contingency to account for any unknown additional costs. Although
maintenance costs are minimal, the total cost figure assumes 8% downtime
and a capital payback period of 6 months.
References: DOE-RL, 1993. Technology Name: High-Energy Corona, Technology

Reference No.: RL-3211-01.
TNA-II OTD/OER Crosswalk Worksheet, 1992, "High-Energy Corona for

Destruction of VOCs in Process Off Gases," The 1993 Technology Needs
Crosswalk Report, Vol. 3, Appendix H, TTP Reference No.: RL-3211-01,
Richland, WA, TRL009.
Virden, J.W., W.O. Heath, S.C. Goheen, M.C. Miller, G.M. Mong, and R.L.
Richardson, 1992. "High-Energy Corona for Destruction of Volatile Organic
Contaminants in Process Off-Gases," in Proceedings of Spectrum '92
International Topical Meeting on Nuclear and Hazardous Waste
Management, Vol. 2, pp. 670-673, 23-27 August 1992, Boise, ID.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.452 10/31/00
4-213
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
DOE Savannah DOE Field Scale Process NA NA NA

River
Points of Contact:


MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.452 10/31/00
4-214
4.53 MEMBRANE SEPARATION
Description: A high pressure membrane separation system has been designed by DOE to
treat feedstreams that contain dilute concentrations of VOCs. The organic
vapor/air separation technology involves the preferential transport of organic
vapors through a nonporous gas separation membrane (a diffusion process
analogous to pumping saline water through a reverse osmosis membrane). In
this system, the feedstream is compressed and sent to a condenser where the
liquid solvent is recovered. The condenser bleed stream, which contains
approximately 5,000 ppm of the VOC, is then sent to the membrane module.
The membrane module is comprised of spiral-wound modules of thin film

membranes separated by plastic mesh spacers. The membrane and the
spacers are wound spirally around a central collection pipe. In the membrane
module the stream is further concentrated to 3% VOC. The concentrated
stream is then returned to the compressor for further recovery in the
condenser.
4-53 TYPICAL MEMBRANE SEPARATION DIAGRAM
Applicability: The targeted contaminants are VOCs, carbon tetrachloride, and chloroform in gas
streams.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.453 10/31/00
4-215
AIR EMISSION/OFF -GAS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Limitations: Limitations of this technology are:
· Inability to handle fouling constituents in soil.

· Inability to handle fluctuations in VOC concentrations.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.3 (Data
Requirements for Air Emissions/Off Gases).
Performance
Data: This technology is being tested at a Hanford site where VOCs will be
obtained by vacuum extraction. Carbon tetrachloride and chloroform will
preferentially be removed from the gas stream. Based upon a VOC effluent
concentration of 1,000 ppm, there is a 95% removal efficiency. The
remaining 5% is polished using carbon adsorption. Future work involves
sizing the pilot plant to handle fluctuations in the VOC concentrations and
fouling of the membrane with other constituents.
Cost: Capital equipment (7,000 scfm) is $2.5 million; O&M is $6,000

(replacement every 3 years). Information on life-cycle will be available upon
completion of testing, and emissions treatment is $2,000 to $5,000 per pound
of VOC recovered.
References: DOE-RL, 1993. Technical Name: VOC Offgas Membrane Separation,

Technology Information Profile (Rev. 3), DOE ProTech Database, TTP
Reference No.: RL-9740.
EPA, 1992. SBP Technologies — Membrane Filtration, EPA RREL,

Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/MR-92/014; and Applications Analysis,
EPA/540/AR-92/014.
EPA, 1994. Membrane Technology and Research, Inc. — Volatile Organic

Compound Removal from Air Streams by Membrane Separations, EPA
RREL, Emergency Technology Bulletin, EPA/540/F-94/503.
EPA, 1994. Volatile Organic Compound Removal from Air Streams by

Membrane Separation, EPA RREL, Emerging Technology Bulletin,
EPA/540/F-94/503.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.453 10/31/00
4-216
4.53 MEMBRANE SEPARATION
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
DOE Hanford DOE Field Testing 1,000 ppm VOC 95% removal $2.5M cap;
$6K annual
Points of Contact:


MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.453 10/31/00
4-217
AIR EMISSION/OFF -GAS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.453 10/31/00
4-218
4.54 OXIDATION
Description: Oxidation equipment (thermal or catalytic) is used for destroying

contaminants in the exhaust gas from air strippers and SVE systems.
Thermal oxidation units are typically single chamber, refractory-lined
oxidizers equipped with a propane or natural gas burner and a stack.
Lightweight ceramic blanket refractory is used because many of these units
are mounted on skids or trailers. If gasoline is the contaminant, heat
exchanger efficiencies are limited to 25 to 35%, and preheat temperatures are
maintained below 180 ? C (530 ? F) to minimize the possibility of ignition
occurring in the heat exchanger. Flame arrestors are always installed
between the vapor source and the thermal oxidizer. Burner capacities in the
combustion chamber range from 0.5 to 2 million Btus per hour. Operating
temperatures range from 760 to 870 ? C (1,400 to 1,600 ? F), and gas
residence times are typically 1 second or less.
4-54 TYPICAL OXIDATION SYSTEM
Catalytic oxidation is a relatively recently applied alternative for the

treatment of VOCs in air streams resulting from remedial operations. The
addition of a catalyst accelerates the rate of oxidation by adsorbing the
oxygen and the contaminant on the catalyst surface where they react to form
carbon dioxide, water, and hydrochloric gas. The catalyst enables the
oxidation reaction to occur at much lower temperatures than required by a
conventional thermal oxidation. VOCs are thermally destroyed at
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.454 10/31/00
4-219
temperatures typically ranging from 320 to 540 ? C (600 to 1,000 ? F) by

using a solid catalyst. First, the contaminated air is directly preheated
(electrically or, more frequently, using natural gas or propane) to reach a
temperature necessary to initiate the catalytic oxidation [310 to 370 ? C (600
to 700 ? F)] of the VOCs. Then the preheated VOC-laden air is passed
through a bed of solid catalysts where the VOCs are rapidly oxidized.
Thermal oxidizers can often be converted to catalytic units after initially high
influent contaminant concentrations decrease to less than 1,000 to 5,000
ppmv.
Catalyst systems used to oxidize VOCs typically use metal oxides such as
nickel oxide, copper oxide, manganese dioxide, or chromium oxide. Noble
metals such as platinum and palladium may also be used. Most
commercially available catalysts are proprietary.
In most cases, the thermal or catalytic oxidation process can be enhanced to

reduce auxiliary fuel costs by using an air-to-air heat exchanger to transfer
heat from the exhaust gases to the incoming contaminated air. Typically,
about 50% of the heat of the exhaust gases is recovered.
Applicability: The target contaminant groups for oxidation are nonhalogenated VOCs and SVOCs
and fuel hydrocarbons. Both precious metal and base metal catalysts have
been developed that are reportedly capable of effectively destroying
halogenated (including chlorinated) hydrocarbons. Specific chlorinated
hydrocarbons that have been treated include TCE, TCA, methylene chloride,
and 1,1-DCA.
Limitations: The following factors may limit applicability and effectiveness:
· If sulfur or halogenated compounds or high particulate loadings are in

the emissions stream, the catalyst can be poisoned/deactivated and
require replacement.
· Destruction of halogenated compounds requires special catalysts,

special materials or construction, and the addition of a flue gas
scrubber to reduce acid gas emissions.
· Influent gas concentrations must be <25% of the lower explosive limit.
· The presence of chlorinated hydrocarbons (see comment above) and

some heavy metals (e.g., lead) may poison a particular catalyst.
(Data Requirements for Air Emissions/Off-Gases). Because of the
limitations discussed in the previous section, it is important that the
contaminated air stream be well characterized.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.454 10/31/00
4-220
4.54 OXIDATION
Performance
Data: Thermal oxidation is effective for site remediation. Its use is increasing
among remediation equipment vendors, and several variations in design are
being marketed. Growing applications include treatment of air stripper and
vacuum extraction gas-phase emissions.
More than 20 firms manufacture catalytic oxidation systems specifically for

remedial activities. These firms will generally supply the equipment to
remedial action contractors for integration with specific remedial
technologies, such as in situ vapor extraction of organics from soil or air
stripping of organics from groundwater.
Despite its relatively newer application in remedial activities, catalytic

oxidation is a mature technology, and its status as an implementable
technology is well established. Nevertheless, the technology continues to
evolve with respect to heat recovery techniques, catalysts to increase
destruction efficiency and/or to extend the operating life of the catalyst bed,
and performance data on a wider range of VOCs.
Cost: The primary factors that will impact the overall cost include quantity,
concentration, and type of contaminant; required destruction efficiencies;
management of residuals; and utility and fuel costs.
Thermal treatment is generally more costly than other remedial technologies

but offers the advantage of permanent, efficient contaminant destruction
within a relatively short time frame. Equipment costs range from $25,000 for
a 200-scfm unit to as much as $200,000 for a 2,000-scfm unit.
Typical energy costs for a catalytic oxidation system alone, operating at 100
to 200 scfm, will range from $8 to $15 per day (for natural gas or propane-
fired systems) and $20 to $40 per day (for electrically heated systems).
Capital costs of equipment operating at throughputs of 2.8 to 5.6 cubic
meters per minute (100 to 500 scfm) are estimated to be in a range from
$20,000 to $100,000. If treatability studies, tests, or demonstrations are
required, additional costs may include:
· Laboratory treatability studies — $10,000 to $50,000.

· Pilot tests or field demonstrations — $100,000 to $500,000.
References: Elliott, Captain Michael G., and Captain Edward G. Marchand, 1989. "U.S.
Air Force Air Stripping and Emissions Control Research," in Proceedings of
the 14th Annual Army Environmental R&D Symposium, Williamsburg, VA,
USATHAMA Report No. CETHA-TE-TR-90055.
EPA, 1987. Destruction of Organic Contaminants by Catalytic Oxidation,

EPA/600/D-87/224.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.454 10/31/00
4-221
Site Information:
Beginning Levels
Dover AFB Maj. Mark Smith Field test of various

catalysts in a catalytic
oxidation system treating NA NA NA
TCE emissions from air
strippers
Wurtsmith AFB Groundwater contaminated

NA with TCE. Air stripping NA NA NA
Former gasoline Leaking resulted in

service station, NA contamination of soil and NA NA NA
Santa Monica, CA groundwater with BTEX.
Dual extraction
Los Angeles, CA NA SVE treatment of TCE soils NA NA NA
Points of Contact:
Leslie Karr NFESC (805) 982-1618 Code 411


Major Mark Smith USAF Environics (904) 283-6126 AL/EQW

Directorate Tyndall AFB, FL

MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.454 10/31/00
4-222
4.55 VAPOR-PHASE CARBON ADSORPTION
Description: Vapor-phase carbon adsorption is a remediation technology in which

pollutants are removed from air by physical adsorption onto activated carbon
grains. Carbon is "activated" for this purpose by processing the carbon to
create porous particles with a large internal surface area (300 to 2,500 square
meters or 3,200 to 27,000 square feet per gram of carbon) that attracts and
adsorbs organic molecules as well as certain metal and inorganic molecules.
4-55 TYPICAL VAPOR-PHASE CARBON ADSORPTION SYSTEM
Commercial grades of activated carbon are available for specific use in

vapor-phase applications. The granular form of activated carbon is typically
used in packed beds through which the contaminated air flows until the
concentration of contaminants in the effluent from the carbon bed exceeds an
acceptable level. Granular-activated carbon (GAC) systems typically consist
of one or more vessels filled with carbon connected in series and/or parallel
operating under atmospheric, negative, or positive pressure. The carbon can
then be regenerated in place, regenerated at an off-site regeneration facility, or
disposed of, depending upon economic considerations.
Carbon can be used in conjunction with steam reforming. Steam reforming is

a technology designed to destroy halogenated solvents (such as carbon
tetrachloride, CCl4, and chloroform, CHCl3) adsorbed on activated carbon by
reaction with superheated steam (steam reforming) in a commercial reactor
(the Synthetica Detoxifier).
Applicability: Vapor-phase carbon adsorption is not recommended to remove high contaminant

concentrations from the effluent air streams. Economics favor pretreatment of the
VOC stream, followed by the use of a vapor-phase GAC system as a polishing step.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.455 10/31/00
4-223
AIR EMISSIONS/OFF-GAS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Limitations: Factors that may limit the effectiveness of this process include:
· Spent carbon transport may require hazardous waste handling.
· Spent carbon must be disposed of and the adsorbed contaminants must

be destroyed, often by thermal treatment.
· Relative humidity greater than 50% can reduce carbon capacity.
· Elevated temperatures from SVE pumps (greater than 38 ? C or

100 ? F) inhibit adsorption capacity.
· Biological growth on carbon or high particulate loadings can reduce

flow through the bed.
· Some compounds, such as ketones, may cause carbon bed fires

because of their high heat release upon adsorption.
(Data Requirements for Air Emissions/Off-Gases).
Factors that affect adsorption are temperature, pH, type, and pore size of the
carbon, the type and concentration of the contaminant, residence time in the
bed, and, in gas phase adsorption, temperature and humidity. At high
temperatures, the volatility of compounds increases, thus reducing their
affinity for carbon. Adsorption of organic acids such as benzoic acid
generally decreases with increasing pH. Basic compounds are adsorbed
better at high pH. Activated carbon is available from manufacturers in a
variety of grades with different properties and affinities for adsorption of
contaminants. Thus, it is often necessary to conduct adsorption tests with a
particular contaminated stream on a variety of activated carbons from several
manufacturers to identify a carbon that will be most effective for a particular
application.
Performance
Data: For gaseous systems, linear bed velocities typically range between 8 and 100
feet per minute, although velocities as high as 200 feet per minute have been
used, and residence times range from one tenth of a second to a minute.
If only one or two contaminants are of concern in the wastestream and there
is little or no contamination from natural organic materials, a batch isotherm
test is usually sufficient to design the system (i.e., determine system size and
carbon usage). It is also possible to use historical column test data that are
available from vendors for a wide assortment of contaminants to obtain initial
design estimates and to corroborate test results. Isotherm tests can also be
used to compare different carbons and to investigate the effects of pH and
temperature on carbon performance. If the use of regenerated carbon is
planned, tests should be performed with regenerated carbon to obtain a more
realistic estimate of the average adsorptive capacity that can be expected
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.455 10/31/00
4-224
4.55 VAPOR-PHASE CARBON ADSORPTION
during operation. Regenerated carbon costs less but tends to have a lower
adsorptive capacity than virgin carbon.
Cost: Equipment costs range from less than $1,000 for a 100-scfm unit to $40,000
for a 7,000-scfm unit. Carbon cost is $2 to $3 per pound.
References: EPA, 1991. Granular Activated Carbon Treatment, Engineering Bulletin,

EPA, OERR, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-91/024.
Hinshaw, G.D., C.B. Fanska, D.E. Fiscus, and S.A. Sorensen, Midwest
Research Institute, Undated. Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) System
Performance Capabilities and Optimization, Final Report, USAEC, APG,
MD, MRI Project No. 81812-S, Report No. AMXTH-TE-CR87111.
Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA, Order No. ADA179828.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.455 10/31/00
4-225
AIR EMISSIONS/OFF-GAS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Points of Contact:
Beth Fleming USAE-WES (601) 634-3943 3909 Halls Ferry Road

Vicksburg, MS 39180-
6199
Ron Turner EPA RREL (513) 569-7775 26 West M.L. King Dr.


Program Manager Washington, DC 20585
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.455 10/31/00
4-226
Section 5
REFERENCES
This reference section has been divided into three subsections:
• 5.1 Document Sources

• 5.2 Listing by Topic
- 5.2.1 International Surveys and Conferences
- 5.2.2 Technology Survey Reports
- 5.2.3 Treatability Studies (General)
- 5.2.4 Groundwater
- 5.2.5 Thermal Processes
- 5.2.6 Biological
- 5.2.7 Physical/Chemical
- 5.2.8 Community Relations
• 5.3 Listing by Author
Subsection 5.1 contains points of contact and agencies for obtaining the documents presented in this
section. Subsection 5.2 lists the documents presented in the Federal Publications on Alternative
and Innovative Treatment Technologies for Corrective Action and Site Remediation, FRTR, 1993.
These documents address innovative technologies and are sorted by topic and by publishing agency.
Subsection 5.3 presents a complete listing of all published references excerpted from each source
document to this guide. This subsection has been sorted by author and date of publication.
? 5.1 DOCUMENT SOURCES
EPA documents and reports listed in this bibliography may be obtained from the following sources:
EPA scientific and technical reports: CERI

Center for Environmental Research 26 West M.L. King Drive
Information (CERI) Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7562
FAX (513) 569-7566
EPA/530 Document Numbers: EPA

RCRA Docket and Information Center Attn: RCRA Information Center
401 M Street, SW, WH-562
(202) 260-9327
EPA Document Numbers (except EPA/530): NCEPI

National Center for Environmental 11029 Kenwood Road
Publications and Information (NCEPI) Cincinnati, OH 45242
FAX OrdeGs: (513) 891-6685
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-1
OSWER Directives: EPA/Document Center

Superfund Document Center 401 M Street SW, OS-245
Attn. Superfund Directives
(202) 260-9760
Publications from Kay Cooper

EPA/Ada Laboratory: EPA/RSKERL
P.O. Box 1198
Ada, OK 74820
(405) 436-8651
NTIS Document Numbers:

(Non-EPA personnel must order EPA documents with NTIS numbers from NTIS.)
National Technical Information Service

U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
To order reports: (703) 487-4650
For general information: (703) 487-4600
Order U.S. Air Force materials not available from NTIS from:
U.S. Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence

AFCEE/CC
Brooks Air Force Base, TX 78235-5000
(210) 536-1110
Order U.S. Army documents from NTIS (see above) or DTIC:
Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC)

Cameron Station
Alexandria, VA 22304-6145
User Services: (703) 274-3848
Documents with CETHA or AMXTH numbers, not available through NTIS or

DTIC, may be requested from:
U.S. Army Environmental Center

ATTN: SFIM-AEC-ETD
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21010-5401
(410) 671-2054
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-2
REFERENCES BY DOCUMENT
Documents with WES numbers, not available from NTIS, may be requested from:
Environmental Engineering Division

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station
(601) 643-2856
Order U.S. Department of Energy documents with OSTI Numbers from:
OSTI
U.S. DOE
Oak Ridge, TN 37801
U.S. Department of the Interior documents may be ordered from the Library of the Salt Lake City
Research Center:
Library
Salt Lake City Research Center
U.S. Department of Interior
729 Arapeen Drive
Salt Lake City, UT 84108
(801) 524-6112
Naval Facilities Engineering Services Center (formerly NCEL and/or NEESA) documents that are
not available through NTIS may be requested from the laboratory directly:
Division Director
Code 411
560 Center Drive
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4328
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-3
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-4
REFERENCES BY TOPIC
? 5.2 LISTING BY TOPIC
This bibliography addresses technologies that provide for the treatment of hazardous wastes;
therefore, it does not contain information or references for containment or other nontreatment
strategies, such as landfilling and capping. This bibliography emphasizes innovative technologies
for which detailed cost and performance data are not readily available. Information on more
conventional treatment technologies, such as incineration and solidification, is not included.
In addition to improving access to information on innovative technologies, the FRTR hopes this
bibliography will assist in the coordination of ongoing research initiatives and increase the
development and implementation of these innovative technologies for corrective action and site
remediation. This bibliography is intended as a starting point in pursuit of information on innovative
alternative hazardous waste treatment technologies and should not be considered all-inclusive.
? 5.2.1 International Surveys and Conferences
EPA
Assessment of International Technologies for Superfund Applications: Technology Review and

Trip Report Results.
EPA/540/2-88/003
Assessment of International Technologies for Superfund Applications: Technology Identification

and Selection.
EPA/600/2-89/017
Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies, Domestic and International,

(Abstract Proceedings).
(First Forum, Atlanta, GA), EPA/540/2-89/055; NTIS: PB90-268509
(Second Forum, Philadelphia, PA), EPA/540/2-90/009; NTIS: PB91-145649
(Third Forum, Dallas, TX), EPA/540/2-91/016; NTIS: PB92-233881
(Fourth Forum, San Francisco, CA), EPA/540/R-92/081
NATO/CCMS Project — International Evaluation of In Situ Biorestoration of Contaminated Soil

and Groundwater.
EPA/540/2-90/012
NATO/CCMS Project — Demonstration of Remedial Action Technologies for Contaminated Land

and Ground Water.
Proceedings are maintained in the Hazardous Waste Collection, EPA Headquarters Library,
Washington, DC
Proceedings of the Symposium on Soil Venting.

EPA/600/R-92/174; NTIS: PB93-122323
Remedial Action, Treatment, and Disposal of Hazardous Waste: Proceedings of the 18th Annual
RREL Hazardous Waste Research Symposium.
EPA/600/R-92/028; NTIS: PB92-166859
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-5
Residual Radioactivity and Recycling Criteria: Workshop Proceedings.

EPA 520/1-90/013; NTIS: PB91-179119
Second International Conference on New Frontiers for Hazardous Waste Management:

Proceedings of a Conference Held in Pittsburgh, PA, Sept. 27-30, 1987.
EPA/600/9-87/018F
Third International Conference on New Frontiers for Hazardous Waste Management:

Proceedings of a Conference Held in Pittsburgh, PA, Sept. 10-13, 1989.
EPA/600/9-89/072
DOE
Bioremediation of Mercury-Contaminated Sites: Foreign Trip Report, Sept. 9-17, 1989.

Turner, R.R. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, DOE, TN. Sept. 1989.
ORNL/FTR-3393; NTIS or OSTI: DE90001248
? 5.2.2 Technology Survey Reports
EPA
A Compendium of Technologies Used in the Treatment of Hazardous Waste.

EPA/625/8-87/014
Approaches for Remediation of Uncontrolled Wood Preserving Sites.

EPA/625/7-90/011
Assessing Detoxification and Degradation of Wood Preserving and Petroleum Wastes in

Contaminated Soil. April, W., R. Sims, and J. Sims. Waste Management & Research.
8(1): 45-65. Feb. 90.
EPA/600/J-90/009; NTIS: PB90-243275
Assessment of International Technologies for Superfund Applications — Technology Identification

and Selection.
EPA/600/S2-89/017
Assessment of Technologies for the Remediation of Radioactively Contaminated Superfund Sites.

EPA/540/2-90/001; NTIS: PB90-204140
Behavior of Metals in Soils.

EPA/540/S-92/018; NTIS: PB93-131480
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends.

EPA/542-R-92/012; NTIS: PB93-140762
Compendium of Costs of Remedial Technologies at Hazardous Waste Sites.

EPA/600/S2-87/087
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-6
REFERENCES BY TOPIC
Contaminants and Remedial Options at Metals-Contaminated Sites. (To be published by EPA).
Contaminants and Remedial Options at Pesticide-Contaminated Sites (To be published by EPA).
Contaminants and Remedial Options at Solvent-Contaminated Sites (To be published by EPA).
Contaminants and Remedial Options at Wood Preserving Sites.

EPA/600/R-92/182; NTIS: PB92-232222
Engineering Bulletin: Control of Air Emissions from Materials Handling During Remediation.
EPA/540/2-91/023
EPA Workshop on Radioactively Contaminated Sites.

EPA/520/1-90/009; NTIS: PB90-227950/AS
General Methods for Remedial Operation Performance Evaluation.

EPA/600/R-92/002
Guidance on Remedial Action for Superfund Sites with PCB Contamination.

EPA/540/G-90/007; NTIS: PB91-921206
Guide to Treatment Technologies for Hazardous Wastes at Superfund Sites. Office of

Environmental Engineering and Technology, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. Mar. 1989.
EPA/540/2-89/052; NTIS: PB 89-190821/XAB
Handbook on In Situ Treatment of Hazardous Waste-Contaminated Soils.

EPA/540/2-90/002; NTIS: PB90-155607
Handbook: Stabilization Technologies for RCRA Corrective Action.

EPA/625/6-91/-2C; NTIS: PB92-114495
Innovative Operational Treatment Technologies for Applications to Superfund Sites.

EPA/540/2-90/006; NTIS: PB90-202656
EPA/540/2-90/004 (Nine Case Studies)
Innovative Processes for Reclamation of Contaminated Subsurface Environments. Canter, L.W.,

L.E. Streebin, M.C. Arquiaga, F.E. Carranza, and B.H. Wilson.
EPA/600/2-90/017 (Project Summary); NTIS: PB 90-199514
Innovative Treatment Technologies: Overview and Guide to Information Sources, October 1991.
EPA/540/9-91/002; NTIS: PB92-179001
Innovative Treatment Technologies: Semi-Annual Status Report. Number 4, October 1992.

EPA/542/R-92/011
In Situ Restoration Techniques for Aquifers Contaminated with Hazardous Wastes. Lee, M.D., J.T.
Wilson, and C.H. Ward. Journal of Hazardous Materials. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 14: 71-82. 1987.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-7
EPA/600/J-87/032; NTIS: PB87-198396
Literature Survey of Innovative Technologies for Hazardous Waste Site Remediation: 1987-1991
July. 1992.
EPA/542/B-92/004
Mobile Treatment Technologies for Superfund Wastes.

EPA/540/2-86/003f
On-Site Treatment of Creosote and Pentachlorophenol Sludges inContaminated Soil.

EPA/600/2-91/019; NTIS: PB91-223370
PCB (Polychlorinated Biphenyl) Sediment Decontamination, Technical/Economic Assessment of

Selected Alternative Treatments: Final Report, Jun. 1985-Feb. 1986. Carpenter, B.H. Hazardous
Waste Engineering Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH. Dec. 1986.
EPA/600/2-86/112
Procuring Innovative Technologies at Remedial Sites: Q's and A's and Case Studies. (Fact Sheet).
EPA/542/F-92/012
Remediation of Contaminated Sediments.

EPA/625/6-91/028
Remediation of Sites Contaminated with TCE.

EPA/600/J-91/030; NTIS: PB91-182311
Report on Decontamination of PCB-Bearing Sediments. Wilson, D.L. Hazardous Waste

Engineering Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH. Oct. 1987.
EPA/600/2-87/093
Review of In-Place Treatment Techniques for Contaminated Surface Soils. Volume I. Technical
Evaluation.
EPA/540/2-84/003a
Selection of Control Technologies for Remediation of Lead Battery Recycling Sites.

EPA/540/2-91/014; NTIS: PB92-114537
Seminar Publication — Corrective Actions: Technologies and Applications.

EPA/625/4-89/020
Subsurface Contamination Reference Guide.

EPA/540/2-90/011; NTIS: PB91-921292
Summary of Treatment Technology Effectiveness for Contaminated Soil: Final Report.

EPA/540/2-90/002
Superfund Engineering Issue— Treatment of Lead Contaminated Soils.

EPA/540/2-91/009; NTIS: PB91-921291
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-8
REFERENCES BY TOPIC
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program — Brochure.

EPA/540/8-89/010
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program — SITE Program Fact Sheet.

OSWER Directive 9330.1-03FS
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology Profiles.

EPA/540/R-92/077 (Fifth Edition, Nov. 1992); NTIS: PB92-224294
Superfund Treatability ClearinghouseAbstracts.

EPA/540/2-89/001; NTIS: PB90-119751
Survey of Materials-Handling Technologies Used at Hazardous Waste Sites.

EPA/540/2-91/010; NTIS: PB91-921283
Technical Resource Document: Treatment Technologies for Halogenated Organic Containing

Wastes. Volume I.
EPA/600/2-87/098
Technological Approaches to the Cleanup of Radiologically Contaminated Superfund Sites.

EPA/540/2-88/002; NTIS: PB89-122121
TCE Removal from Contaminated Soil and Ground Water.

EPA/540/S-92/002; NTIS: PB92-224104
Technologies and Options for UST Corrective Actions: Overview of Current Practice.
EPA/542/R-92/010
Technologies for In Situ Treatment of Hazardous Wastes. Sanning, D.E. and R.F. Lewis.
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH. Jan. 1987.
EPA/600/D-87/014; NTIS: PB87-146007/XAB
Technologies of Delivery or Recovery for the Remediation of Hazardous Waste Sites.

EPA/600/S2-89/066 (Project Summary); NTIS: PB90-156225
Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of Soils andSludges.

NTIS: PB 89-132674
Treatment of Lead-Contaminated Soils.

EPA/540/2-91/009
Treatment Potential for 56 EPA Listed Hazardous Chemicals in Soil. Sims, R.C., W.J. Doucette,
J.E. McLean, W.J. Greeney, and R.R. Dupont. Feb. 1988.
EPA/600/6-88/001; NTIS: PB89-174446
Treatment Technology Background Document. Berlow, J.R. and J. Vorbach. Office of Solid Waste,
U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. Jun. 1989.
EPA/530/SW-89/048A; NTIS: PB89-221410/XAB
Workshop on Innovative Technologies for Treatment of Contaminated Sediments, June 13-14,
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-9
1990, Summary Report.

EPA/600/S2-90/054
DOE
Demonstrations of Technology for Remediation and Closure of Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Waste Disposal Sites. Spalding, B.P., G.K. Jacobs, and E.C. Davis. Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, DOE, TN. Sept. 1989.
NTIS: ORNL/TM-11286; or OSTI: DE90001854
Treatability of Hazardous Chemicals in Soils: Volatile and Semivolatile Organics. Walton, B.T.,
M.S. Hendricks, T.A. Anderson, and S.S. Talmage. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, DOE, TN.
Jul. 1989.
NTIS: ORNL-6451; or OSTI: DE89016892 (Also available from EPA, Ada, OK)
U.S. Air Force
Remedial Technology Design, Performance, and Cost Study. U.S. Air Force Center for
Environmental Excellence, Brooks AFB, Texas. July 1992.
U.S. Army
Clean Up of Heavy Metals in Soils Technology Assessment: Draft. Bricka, R.M. and C.W.
Williford. U.S. Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 1992.
No published document number.
Guidelines for Selecting Control and Treatment Options for Contaminated Dredged Material
Requiring Restrictions: Final Report. Cullinane, M.J., et al. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station. Sept. 1986.
Installation Restoration and Hazardous Waste Control Technologies. 1990 Edition. U.S. Army
Environmental Center. Aug. 1990.
CETHA-TS-CR-90067
Proceedings from the 15th Annual Army Environmental R&D Symposium. U.S. Army
Environmental Center. Jun. 1991.
CETHA-TS-CR-91076
Review of Removal, Containment and Treatment Technologies for Remediation of Contaminated

Sediment in the Great Lakes. Averett, D.E., B.D. Perry, and E.J. Torrey. U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 1990.
WES: MP-90-25
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-10
REFERENCES BY TOPIC
? 5.2.3 Treatability Studies (General)
EPA
Conducting Treatability Studies Under RCRA.

OSWER Directive 9380.3-09 (Fact Sheet); NTIS: PB92-963501
Groundwater and Leachate Treatability Studies at Four Superfund Sites.

EPA/600/2-86/029
Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: Aerobic Biodegradation Remedy
Screening.
EPA/540/2-91/013 A&B; NTIS: PB92-109065 and PB92-109073
Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: Chemical Dehalogenation.

EPA/540/R-92/013 A&B; NTIS: PB92-169044 and PB92-169275
Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: Soil Vapor Extraction.
EPA/540/2-91/019 A&B
Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: Soil Washing.

EPA/540/2-91/1020 A&B; NTIS: PB92-170570 and PB92-170588
Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: Solvent Extraction.

EPA/540/R-92/016 A; NTIS: PB92-239581
Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA, Update.

EPA/540/R-92/017A
Inventory of Treatability Study Vendors, Volume I.

EPA/540/2-90/003a; NTIS: PB91-228395
Results of Treatment Evaluations of Contaminated Soils. Esposito, P., J. Hessling, B.B. Locke, M.
Taylor, and M. Szabo. Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati,
OH. Aug. 1988.
EPA/600/D-88/181
Treatability of Hazardous Chemicals in Soils: Volatile and Semi-Volatile Organics.

NTIS: DE89-016892
Treatability Potential For EPA Listed Hazardous Wastes in Soil. Loehr, R.C.
EPA/600/2-89/011 (Available from EPA, Ada, OK); NTIS: PB 89-166581
Treatability Potential for 56 EPA Listed Hazardous Chemicals in Soil.

EPA/600/6-88/001 (Available from EPA, Ada, OK); NTIS: PB 89-174446
Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: An Overview, 12/89.

OSWER Directive 9380.3-02FS (Fact Sheet); NTIS: PB90-273970
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-11
U.S. Army
Treatability of Ninth Avenue Superfund Site Groundwater. Zappi, M.E., C.L. Teeter, and N.R.
Francingues. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 1991.
WES: EL-91-8
? 5.2.4 Groundwater
EPA
Biorestoration of Aquifers Contaminated with Organic Compounds.

EPA/600/J-88/-78; NTIS: PB89-103527
Chemical Enhancements to Pump-and-Treat Remediation.

EPA/540/S-92/001 (Available from EPA, Ada, OK); NTIS: PB92-180074
Containment Transport in Fractured Media: Models for Decision Makers (Issue Paper).
EPA/540/4-89/004 (Available from EPA, Ada, OK); NTIS: PB92-268517
Considerations in Groundwater Remediation at Superfund Sites and RCRA Facilities— Update.

OSWER Directive 9283.1-06; NTIS: PB92-963358
Critical Evaluation of Treatment Technologies with Particular Reference to Pump-and-Treat

Systems.
EPA/600/A-92/224; NTIS: PB93-119857
Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquids — A Workshop Summary.

EPA/600/R-92/030 (Available from EPA, Ada, OK); NTIS: PB92-178938
Emerging Technology Report — Biorecovery Systems Removal and Recovery of Metal Ions from
Ground Water.
EPA/540/5-90/005a (Evaluation Report); NTIS: PB90-252594
EPA/540/5-90/005b (Data and Supporting Information); NTIS: PB90-252602
Estimating Potential for Occurrence of DNAPL at Superfund Sites.

EPA Publication 9355.4-07FS (Available from EPA, Ada, OK); NTIS: PB92-963338
Evaluation of Ground Water Extraction Remedies.

NTIS: PB90-18358 (Vol. 1, Summary Report)
PB90-274440 (Vol. 2, Case Studies [Interim Final])
PB90-274457 (Vol. 3, General Site Data, Data Base Reports [Interim Final])
Facilitated Transport (Issue Paper).

Fundamentals of Ground Water Modeling.

EPA/540/S-92/005; NTIS: PB92-232354
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-12
REFERENCES BY TOPIC
Ground Water Issue: Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquids.

EPA/540/4-91/020A (Available from EPA, Ada, OK); NTIS: PB91-195974
Ground Water Issue — Evaluation of Soil Venting Application.

EPA/540/S-92/004; NTIS: PB92-235605
Ground Water Issue — Reductive Dehalogenation of Organic Contaminants in Soils and Ground
Water.
Guidance on Remedial Actions for Contaminated Ground Water at Superfund Sites.

EPA/540/G-88/003; NTIS: PB89-184618
In Situ Aquifer Restoration of Chlorinated Aliphatics by Methanotrophic Bacteria.

EPA/600/2-89/033; NTIS: PB219992
In Situ Bioremediation of Contaminated Ground Water.

EPA/540/S-92/003; NTIS: PB92-224336
In Situ Treatments of Contaminated Ground Water: An Inventory of Research and Field

Demonstrations and Strategies for Improving Ground Water Remediation Technologies.
EPA/500/K-93/001
Opportunities for Bioreclamation of Aquifers Contaminated with Petroleum Hydrocarbons.

EPA/600/J-87/133; NTIS: PB88-148150
Performance Evaluations of Pump-and-Treat Remediations. (Issue Paper).

Pump-and-Treat Ground Water Remediation Technology.

EPA/540/2-90/018; NTIS: PB91-921356
TCE Removal from Contaminated Soil and Ground Water.

EPA/540/S-92/002; NTIS: PB92-224104
? 5.2.5 Thermal Processes
EPA
Applications Analysis Report — Babcock & Wilcox Cyclone Furnace Vitrification Technology.
EPA/540/AR-92/017
Applications Analysis Report — Horsehead Resource Development Company, Inc., Flame Reactor
Technology.
EPA/540/A5-91/005
Applications Analysis Report — Retech, Inc., Plasma Centrifugal Furnace.

EPA/540/A5-91/007
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-13
Demonstration Bulletin — AOSTRA-SoilTech Anaerobic Thermal Processor: Wide Beach

Development Site.
EPA/540/MR-92/008
Demonstration Bulletin — Roy F. Weston, Inc.: Low Temperature Thermal Treatment System.
EPA/540/MR-92/019
Demonstration Bulletin — SoilTech Anaerobic Thermal Processor: Outboard Marine Corporation

Site.
EPA/540/MR-92/078
Engineering Bulletin — Mobile/Transportable Incineration Treatment.

EPA/540/2-90/014
Engineering Bulletin — Pyrolysis Treatment.

EPA/540/S-92/010
Engineering Bulletin — Thermal Desorption Treatment.

EPA/540/2-91/008
Handbook — Vitrification Technology for the Treatment of Hazardous and Radioactive Waste.
EPA/540/R-92/012
Innovative Technology: In Situ Vitrification.

OSWER Directive 9200.5-251-FS (Fact Sheet)
Radio Frequency Enhanced Decontamination of Soils Contaminated with Halogenated

Hydrocarbons.
EPA/600/S2-89/008
DOE
Evaluation of the Molten Salt Oxidation Process Technology.

DOE/ID/12584-97, GJPO-105
U.S. Army
Bench-Scale Investigation of Low Temperature Thermal Stripping of Volatile Organic Compounds

(VOCs) from Various Soil Types: Technical Report. Johnson, N.P., J.W. Noland, and P.J. Marks.
U.S. Army Environmental Center. Nov. 1987.
AMXTH-TE-CR-87124
Demonstration of Thermal Stripping of JP-4 and other VOCs from Soils at Tinker Air Force Base,
Oklahoma City, OK: Final Report. U.S. Army Environmental Center. Mar. 1990.
CETHA-TS-CR-90026
Economic Evaluation of Low Temperature Thermal Stripping of Volatile Organic Compounds from
Soil: Technical Report. Marks, P.J. and J.W. Noland. U.S. Army Environmental Center. Aug.
1986.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-14
REFERENCES BY TOPIC
AMXTH-TE-CR-86085
Final Report: Design Support for a Hot Gas Decontamination System for Explosives-
Contaminated Buildings. Maumee Research and Engineering. U.S. Army Environmental Center.
CETHA-TS-CR-91064
Final Technical Report: Pilot Test of Hot Gas Decontamination of Explosives-Contaminated

Equipment at Hawthorne Army Ammunition Plant (HWAAP), Hawthorne, NV. U.S. Army
Environmental Center. July 1990.
Pilot Investigation of Low Temperature Thermal Stripping of Volatile Organic Compounds from
Soil (2 vols.). U.S. Army Environmental Center. Task 11. June 1986.
AMXTH-TE-TR-86074
? 5.2.6 Biological
EPA
A Bioventing Approach To Remediate A Gasoline Contaminated Surface.

EPA/600/A-92/220; NTIS: PB93-119816
Action of a Fluoranthene-Utilizing Bacterial Community of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon

Components of Creosote.
EPA/600/J-89/425
Adaptation to and Biodegradation of Xenobiotic Compounds by Microbial Communities from a

Pristine Aquifer. Aelion, C.M., C.M. Swindoll, and F.K. Pfaender. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
53(9): 2212-2217. Sept. 1987.
EPA/600/J-87/208; NTIS: PB 88-170584
Aerobic Biodegradation of Natural and Xenobiotic Organic Compounds by Subsurface Microbial

Communities. Swindoll, C.M., C.M. Aelion, D.C. Dobbins, et al. Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry. 7(4): 291-299. Apr. 1988.
EPA/600/J-88/067; NTIS: PB 89-103204
Alaskan Oil Spill Bioremediation Project.

EPA/600/8-89/073
Anaerobic Biotransformations of Pollutant Chemicals in Aquifers. Suflita, J.M., S.A. Gibson, and
R.E. Beeman. Journal of Industrial Microbiology. 3(3): 179-194. May 1988.
EPA/600/J-88/142; NTIS: PB 89-119341
Anaerobic Degradation of Nitrogen Substituted and Sulfonated Benzene Aquifer Contaminants.

Suflita, J.M. Hazardous Wastes and Hazardous Materials. 6(2): 121-133. Spring 1989.
EPA/600/J-89/190; NTIS: PB 90-140708
Anaerobic Degradation of o-, m- and p-Cresol by Sulfate-Reducing Bacterial Enrichment Cultures

Obtained from a Shallow Anoxic Aquifer. Suflita, J.M., L. Liang, and A. Saxena. Journal of
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-15
Industrial Microbiology. 4(4): 255-266. Jul. 1989.

EPA/600/J-89/187; NTIS: PB 90-140674
Applications Analysis Report — Biotrol: Biotreatment of Groundwater.

EPA/540/A5-91/001
Approach to Bioremediation of Contaminated Soil.

EPA/600/J-90/203
Assessing Detoxification and Degradation of Wood Preserving and Petroleum Wastes in

Contaminated Soil.
EPA/600/J-90/099
Athias — An Information System for Abiotic Transformations of Halogenated Hydrocarbons in

Aqueous Solution. Ellenrider, W. and M. Reihhard. Chemosphere. 17(2): 331-344. Feb. 1988.
EPA/600/J-88/026; NTIS: PB 88-224357
Biological Remediation of Contaminated Sediments, with Special Emphasis on the Great Lakes.
EPA/600/S9-91/001
Biological Treatment of Leachate from a Superfund Site.

EPA/600/J-89/001
The Biodegradation of Cresol Isomers in Anoxic Aquifers. Smolenski, W.J. and J.M. Suflita.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 53(4): 710-716. Apr. 1987.
EPA/600/J-87/131; NTIS: PB 88-149125
Bioremediation Case Studies: Abstracts.

EPA/600/9-92/044; NTIS: PB92-232347
Bioremediation Case Studies: An Analysis of Vendor Supplied Data.

EPA/600/R-92/043; NTIS: PB92-232339
Bioremediation Field Initiative Fact Sheets.

EPA/540/F-92/012
Bioremediation of Contaminated Surface Soils. Sims, J.L., R.C. Sims, and J.E. Matthews. Robert
S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Ada, OK. Aug. 1989.
EPA-600/9-89/073; NTIS: PB 90-164047/XAB
Bioremediation of Hazardous Waste.

EPA/600/9-90/041
Bioremediated Soil Venting of Light Hydrocarbons.

EPA/600/J-90/397; NTIS: PB91-171538/XAB
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-16
REFERENCES BY TOPIC
Biorestoration of Aquifers Contaminated with Organic Compounds. Lee, M.D., J.M. Thomas,
R.C. Borden, P.B. Bedient, C.H. Ward, and J.T. Wilson. CRC Critical Reviews in Environmental
Control. 18(1): 29-89. 1988.
EPA/600/J-88/078; NTIS: PB 89-103527
Biotransformation of Priority Pollutants Using Biofilms and Vascular Plants. Wolvedon, B.C. and
R.C.J. McCales. Mississippi Academy of Sciences. Vol. XXXI. pp. 79-89. 1986.
EPA/600/J-86/310; NTIS: PB 87-176764
Biotransformation of Selected Alkylbenzenes and Halogenated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons in

Methanogenic Aquifer Material: A Microcosm Study. Smith, B.H., G.B. Smith, and J.S. Rees.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 20(10): 997-1002. 1986.
EPA/600/J-86/227; NTIS: PB 87-170791
Demonstration Bulletin — Aqueous Biological Treatment System (Fixed Film Biodegradation).

EPA/540/M5-91/001
Demonstration Bulletin — International Technology Corporation: Slurry Biodegradation.

EPA/540/M5-91/009
Determination and Enhancement of Anaerobic Dehalogenation: Degradation of Chlorinated

Organics in Aqueous Systems.
EPA/600/2-88/054
Determination of Optimal Toxicant Loading for Biological Closure of a Hazardous Waste Site.
EPA/600/D-89/163
Engineering Bulletin — Slurry Biodegradation.

EPA/540/2-90/016; NTIS: PB91-228049
Enhanced Bioremediation Utilizing Hydrogen Peroxide as a Supplemental Source of Oxygen

.
Huling, S. and B. Bledsoe.
EPA/600/2-90/006; NTIS: PB90-183435
Extrapolation of Biodegradation Results to Groundwater Aquifers: Reductive Dehalogenation of

Aromatic Compounds. Gibson, S.A. and J.M. Suflita. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 52(4): 681-688.
Oct. 1986.
EPA/600/J-86/379; NTIS: PB87-212429/AS
Field Evaluation of Bioremediation of a Fuel Spill Using Hydrogen Peroxide.

NTIS: PB88-130257
Field Evaluation of In Situ Biodegradation for Aquifer Restoration. Semprini, L., P. Roberts,
G. Hopkins, D. Mackay. Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Nov. 1987.
EPA/600/2-87/096; NTIS: PB88-130257
Innovative Technology: Slurry-Phase Biodegradation.

In Situ Aquifer Restoration of Chlorinated Aliphatics by Methanotrophic Bacteria. Roberts, P.,
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-17
L. Semprini, G. Hopkins, et al. Jul. 1989.

EPA/600/2-89/033; NTIS: PB 89-21992/AS
In Situ Bioremediation of Ground Water.

EPA/540/S-92/003; NTIS: PB92-224336
In Situ Bioremediation of Spills from Underground Storage Tanks: New Approaches for Site
Characterization, Project Design, and Evaluation of Performance. Wilson, J.T. and L.E. Leach.
EPA/600/2-89/042; NTIS: PB 89-219976 (Available from EPA, Ada, OK)
In Situ Biorestoration as a Ground Water Remediation Technique. Wilson, J.T., L.E. Leach,
M.J. Henson, and J.N. Jones. Ground Water Monitoring Review. pp. 56-64. Fall 1986.
EPA/600/J-86/305; NTIS: PB 87-177101
In-Situ Biotransformation of Carbon Tetrachloride under Anoxic Conditions.

EPA/600/S2-90/060
Interactive Simulation of the Fate of Hazardous Chemicals During Land Treatment of Oily Wastes:
Ritz User's Guide.
NTIS: PB-88-195540
Laboratory Studies Evaluating the Enhanced Biodegradation of Weathered Crude Oil Components
Through the Application of Nutrients.
EPA/600/D-90/139
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks: Remediation with Emphasis on In Situ Biorestoration.

Thomas, J.M., M.D. Lee, P.B. Bedient, et al. Jan. 1987.
EPA/600/2-87/008; NTIS: PB 87-168084
Lubbock Land Treatment System Research and Demonstration Project. Volume 2. Percolate
Investigation in the Root Zone.
EPA/600/2-86/027b
Lubbock Land Treatment System Research and Demonstration Project. Volume 5. Executive
Summary.
EPA/600/2-86/027e
Microbial Decomposition of Chlorinated Aromatic Compounds.

EPA/600/2-86/090
Microbial Degradation of Nitrogen, Oxygen and Sulfur Heterocyclic Compounds Under Anaerobic
Conditions: Studies with Aquifer Samples. Kuhn, E.P. and J.M. Suflita. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry. 8(12): 1149-1158. Dec. 1989.
EPA/600/J-89/353; NTIS: PB 90-216276
Microbial Removal of Halogenated Methanes, Ethanes, and Ethylenes in an Aerobic Soil Exposed
to Methane. Henson, J.M., M.V. Yates, J.W. Cochran, and D.L. Shackleford. FEMS Microbiology
Ecology. 53(3-4): 193-201. May-Jun. 1988.
EPA/600/J-88/066; NTIS: PB 90-103196
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-18
REFERENCES BY TOPIC
Mobility and Degradation of Residues at Hazardous Waste Land Treatment Sites at Closure.
EPA/600/2-90/018; NTIS: PB90-212564/A5
Nitrate for Biorestoration of an Aquifer Contaminated with Jet Fuel.

EPA/600/S2-91/009
Opportunities for Bioreclamation of Aquifers Contaminated with Petroleum Hydrocarbons.

Wilson, J.T. and C.S. Ward. Developments in Industrial Microbiology (Journal of Industrial
Microbiology Suppl. I). Elsevier, Amsterdam, Biomedical Division. 27: 109-116. 1987.
EPA/600/J-87/133; NTIS: PB 88-148150
Promising Technologies for the Biological Detoxification of Hazardous Waste.

EPA/600/D-88/040
Reductive Dehalogenation of a Nitrogen Heterocyclic Herbicide in Anoxic Aquifer Slurries.

Adrian, N.R. and J.M. Suflita. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 56(1): 292-294. Jan. 1990.
EPA/600/J-90/098; NTIS: PB 90-245267
Removal of Volatile Aliphatic Hydrocarbons in a Soil Bioreactor.

NTIS: PB88-170568
Removal of Volatile Aliphatic Hydrocarbons in a Soil Bioreactor. Kampbell, D., J. Wilson, H.

Read, and T. Stocksdale. Journal of Air Pollution Control and Hazardous Waste Management.
37(10): 1236-1240. Oct. 1987.
EPA/600/J-87/261; NTIS: PB 88-180393
Role of Microorganisms in the Bioremediation of the Oil Spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska.
EPA/600/D-90/119
Sequential Reductive Dehalogenation of Chloroanilines by Microorganisms from a Methanogenic

Aquifer. Kuhn, E.P. and J.M. Suflita. Environmental Science Technology. 23(7): 848-852. Jul.
1989.
EPA/600/J-89/103; NTIS: PB 90-117219/AS
Structural Properties of Organic Chemicals as Predictors of Biodegradation and Microbial

Toxicity in Soil. Walton, B.T. and T.A. Anderson. Chemosphere.17(8): 1501-1507. Aug. 1989.
EPA/600/J-88/413; NTIS: PB 90-117078/AS
Transformation of Halogenated Aliphatic Compounds.

NTIS: PB88-249859
Transport of Dissolved Hydrocarbons Influenced by Oxygen-Limited Biodegradation. I.

Theoretical Development. Borden, R.C. and P.B. Bedient. Water Resources Research. 22(13):
1973-1982. Dec. 1986.
EPA/600/J-86/333; NTIS: PB 87-179727
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-19
Transport of Dissolved Hydrocarbons Influenced by Oxygen-Limited Biodegradation. II. Field

Application. Borden, R.C., P.B. Bedient, M.D. Lee, C.H. Ward, and J.T. Wilson. Water Resources
Research. 22(13): 1983-1990. Dec. 1986.
EPA/600/J-86/333; NTIS: PB 87-179735
DOE
Biodenitrification of Hanford Groundwater and Process Effluents: FY 1988 Status Report.

Koegler, S.S., T.M. Brouns, W.O. Heath, and R.J. Hicks. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, DOE,
Richland, WA. Sept. 1989.
PNL-6917; NTIS or OSTI: DE90000993
Bioremediation of PCB-Contaminated Soil at the T-12 Plant. Donaldson, T.L., G.W. Strandberg,
G.P. McGinnis, A.V. Palumbo, D.C. White, D.L. Hill, T.J. Phelps, C.T. Hadden, N.W. Revis, and G.
Holdsworth. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, DOE, TN. Sept. 1988.
ORNL/TM-10750; NTIS or OSTI: DE89001335
Development of a Biological Process for Destruction of Nitrates and Carbon Tetrachloride in

Hanford Groundwater. Koegler, S.S., T.M. Brouns, and R. Hicks. Pacific Northwest Laboratory,
DOE, Richland, WA. Oct. 1989.
PNL-SA-16928; NTIS or OSTI: DE90004675
Development of a Biological Treatment System for Hanford Groundwater Remediation: FY 1989

Status Report. Brouns, T.M., S.S. Koegler, W.O. Heath, J.K. Fredrickson, (Pacific Northwest
Laboratory, Richland, WA); H.D. Stensel, (Washington University, Seattle, WA); Johnstone, D.L.,
(Washington State University, Pullman, WA); and T.L. Donaldson, (Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, TN). Pacific Northwest Laboratory, DOE, Richland, WA. Apr. 1990.
PNL-7290; NTIS or OSTI: DE90010365
Test Plan for In Situ Bioremediation Demonstration of the Savannah River Integrated
Demonstration Project DOE/OTD TTP No.: SR0566-01 (U).
WSRC-RD-91-23
DOI
A Biohydrometallurgical Technique for Selenium Removal from Wastewater. Larsen, D.M., K.R.
Gardner, and P.B. Altringer. Proceedings of the American Water Resources Association 23rd Annual
Conference and Symposium, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1987.
AWRA Technical Publication TPS-87-4
Advances in Biological Cyanide Detoxification. Altringer, P.B., R.H.Lien, and B.E. Dinsdale.
Proceedings from the Randol Gold forum, Vancouver '92.
Arsenic Removal from Mining Wastewaters Using Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria in a Two-Stage

Bioreactor. Belin, D.D., B.E. Dinsdale, and P.B. Altringer. To be presented at International
Biohydrometallurgy Symposium, August 1993.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-20
REFERENCES BY TOPIC
Bacterial Destruction of Cyanide. Altringer, P.B. and R.H. Lien. A Report from the Conference on
"Successful Mine Reclamation: What Works."
Bacterial Leaching of Metals from Various Matrices Found in Sediments, Removing Inorganics
from Sediment-Associated Waters Using Bioaccumulation and/or BIO-FIX Beads. Altringer, P.B.
Presented at EPA-ARCS Workshop, Manitowoc, Wisconsin, 1990.
No published document number. See Biological Remediation of Contaminated Sediments with
Special Emphasis on the Great Lakes (EPA/600/9-91/001)
BIO-FIX Water Treatment Technology. Jeffers, T.H., C.R. Ferguson, and P.G. Bennett. Published in
the Randol Gold Forum Cairns '91 Proceedings. April 1991.
Biological Arsenic Removal from Mining and Mill Waters by Anaerobic Sulfate Reducing Bacteria.
Dinsdale, B.E., D.D. Belin, and P.B. Altringer. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on
Environmental Issues and Management of Waste in Energy and Mineral Production, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, September 2-4, 1992.
Biological and Chemical Cyanide Destruction from Heap Leachates and Residues. Lien, R.H.,
B.E. Dinsdale, and P.B. Altringer. Environmental Management for the 1990's. 1991.
Biological and Chemical Cyanide Destruction from Precious Metals Solutions. Lien, R.H., B.E.
Dinsdale, and P.B. Altringer. Presented at AIME-SME GOLDTech 4, Reno, NV. Sept. 1990.
Biological and Chemical Selenium Removal from Precious Metals Solutions. Altringer, P.B., R.H.
Lien, and K.R. Gardner. Environmental Management for the 1990's. 1991.
Biological Treatment of Acid Mine Waters — Case Studies. Bennett, P.G., C.R. Ferguson, and T.H.
Jeffers. Published in Proceedings, Second International Conference on the Abatement of Acidic
Drainage. Sept. 1991.
Biologically Assisted Control of Selenium in Process Waste Waters. Larsen, D.M., K.R. Gardner,
and P.B. Altringer. Presented at the 118th Annual AIME Meeting, February 1989.
Bioreduction of Selenate and Selenite and Potential Industrial Applications. D.J. Adams, P.B.
Altringer, and W.D. Gould. Presented at the Engineering Foundation Innovative Separation
Technologies Meeting, Palm Coast, Florida, March 1993.
Bioremediation for Removal of Inorganics from Contaminated Sediment. D.J. Adams and P.B.
Altringer. Presented at the Assessment and Treatment of Contaminated Sediments in the North
Branch of the Chicago River Conference, October 19-20, 1992.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-21
Biosorption of Metal Contaminants from Acidic Mine Waters. Jeffers, T.H., C.R. Ferguson, and
P.G. Bennett. Published by the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society. 1991.
Biosorption of Metal Contaminants from Acidic Mine Waters. Corwin, R.R. and T.H. Jeffers.
Published in Conference Proceedings: Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs, 13th Annual
Conference by Missouri Department of Natural Resources. Oct. 1991.
Biosorption of Metal Contaminants Using Immobilized Biomass. Jeffers, T.H., C.R. Ferguson, and
D.C. Seidel. Published in Biohydrometallurgy — Proceedings of the International Symposium,
Jackson Hole, WY, August 13-18, 1989. 1989.
Biosorption of Metal Contaminants Using Immobilized Biomass — A Laboratory Study. Jeffers,

T.H., C.R. Ferguson, and P. G. Bennett. 1990.
Case Study: Bacterial Cyanide Detoxification During Closure of the Green Springs Gold Heap
Leach Operation. Lien, R.H. and P.B. Altringer. To be presented at the International
Biohydrometallurgy Symposium, August 1993.
Chemical and Biological Cyanide Destruction and Selenium Removal from Precious Metals
Tailings Pond Water. Lien, R.H, B.E. Dinsdale, K.R. Gardner, and P.B. Altringer. Published in
Gold 90. Society of Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration. 1990.
Determining Mechanisms of Anoxic Bacterial Selenium Removal. Altringer, P.B., R.H. Lien, and
K.R. Gardner. Published in Selenium in the Environment. Marcel Dekker, Inc. 1993.
Mathematically Modeling the Removal of Heavy Metals from a Wastewater Using Immobilized
Biomass. Trujillo, E.M., T.H. Jeffers, C.R. Ferguson, and H.Q. Stevenson. Environmental Science
and Technology. 25:9:1,559-1,568. 1991.
Removal of Metal Contaminants from a Waste Stream Using BIO-FIX Beads Containing
Sphagnum Moss. Bennett, P.G. and T.H. Jeffers. Presented at the Western Regional Symposium on
Mining and Mineral Processing Wastes. 1990.
Removal of Metal Contaminants from Waste Waters Using Biomass Immobilized in Polysulfone
Beads. Ferguson, C.R., and M.R. Peterson. Presented at the 1989 AIME Annual Meeting. 1989.
Published in Biotechnology in Minerals and Metals Processing. 1989.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-22
REFERENCES BY TOPIC
U.S. Air Force
Aerobic Degradation of Trichlorethylene. Nelson, M.J.K., P.H. Pritchard, S.O. Montgomery, and
A.W. Bourquin. Jul. 1987.
ESL-TR-86-44; NTIS: AD-A184 948/8/XAB
A Field-Scale Investigation of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Degradation in the Vadose Zone Enhanced

by Soil Venting at Tyndall AFB, FL. Miller, R.N, C.M.Vogel, and R.E. Hinchee. Published in In-
Situ Bioreclamation (R.E. Hinchee and R.F. Olfenbuttel, Editors). pp. 283-302. 1991.
A Rapid Rise In-Situ Respiration Test for Measuring Aerobic Biodegradation Rates of
Hydrocarbons in Soils. Hinchee, R.E. and S.K. Ong. Journal of the American Waste Management
Association. 42:1305-1312. 1992.
Assessment of In-Situ Bioremediation Potential and the Application of Bioventing at a Fuel

Contaminated Site. Dupont, R.R., W.J. Doucette, and R.E. Hinchee. Published in Bioreclamation.
pp. 262-282. 1991.
Batch and Column Studies on BTEX Biodegradation by Aquifer Microorganisms Under

Denitrifying Conditions. Hutchins, S.R., S.W. Moolenaar, and D.E. Rhodes. March 1993.
ESL-TR-92-16
Bench Scale Studies of the Soil Aeration Process for Bioremediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbon
Soil. Hinchee, R.E. and M. Arthur. Journal of Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology.
28/29:287-289. 1991
Biodegradation and Sorption of Organic Solvents and Hydrocarbon Fuel Constituents in

Subsurface Environments. Wilson, J.T., J.M. Henson, M.D. Piwoni, B.H. Wilson, and P. Banerjee.
Engineering and Services Laboratory, Air Force Engineering and Services Center, Tyndall Air Force
Base, FL. Mar. 1988.
Biodegradation of Dichloromethane and Its Utilization as a Growth Substrate Under

Methanogenic Conditions. Freedman, D.L. and J.M. Gossett. Applied and Environmental
Microbiology. 57:2847-2857. 1991.
Biodegradation of Dichloromethane in a Fixed Film Reactor Under Methanogenic Conditions.

Freedman, D.L. and J.M. Gossett. Proceedings — In-Situ and On-Site Bioreclamation: An
International Symposium. San Diego, CA. 1991.
Biodegradation of Mixed Solvents by a Strain of Pseudomonas. Spain, J.C., C.A. Pettigrew, and
B.E. Haigler. Published in Environmental Biotechnology for Waste Treatment. Plenum Press. New
York, NY. 1991.
Biodegradation of Monoaromatic Hydrocarbons by Aquifer Microorganisms Using Oxygen,

Nitrate, or Nitrous Oxide as the Terminal Electron Acceptor. Hutchins, S.R. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology. 57:2403-2407. 1991.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-23
Biological Reductive Dechlorination of Tetrachloroethylene and Trichloroethylene to Ethylene

Under Methanogenic Conditions. Freedman, D.L. and J.M. Gossett. Applied and Environmental
Microbiology. 55:2144-2151. 1989.
Biotransformation and Mineralization of Benzene, Toluene, and Xylenes Under Denitrifying and
Microaerophilic Conditions. Hutchins, S.R. Extended Abstract, 3rd International Conference on
Groundwater Quality Research. Dallas, TX. In Press. 1992.
Chlorobenzene Degradation by Bacteria Isolated from Contaminated Groundwater. Nishino, S.F.,

J.C. Spain, L. A. Belcher, and C.D. Litchfield. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 58:1719-
1726. 1992.
Column Studies on BTEX Biodegradation Under Microaerophilic and Denitrifying Conditions.

Hutchins, S.R., S.W. Moolenaar, and D.E. Rhodes. Proceedings — 4th Annual Symposium of the
Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance Research Center. Lamar University, Beaumont, TX. pp. 67-90.
1992.
Column Studies on BTEX Biodegradation Under Microaerophilic and Denitrifying Conditions.

Hutchins, S.R., S.W. Moolenaar, and D.E. Rhodes. Extended Abstract, 3rd International
Conference on Groundwater Quality Research. Dallas, TX. In Press. 1992.
Combined Biological and Physical Treatment of a Jet Fuel-Contaminated Aquifer. Downey, D.C.,
R.E. Hinchee, M.S. Westray, and J.K. Slaughter. Proceedings — NWWA/API Conference on
Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Groundwater. Houston, TX. 1988.
Combined Biological and Physical Treatment of a Jet Fuel-Contaminated Aquifer. Downey, D.C.,
R.E. Hinchee, M.S. Westray, and J.K. Slaughter. U.S. Air Force Engineering and Services Center,
Tyndall, Air Force Base, FL. 1989.
Enhanced Bioreclamation of Jet Fuels — A Full-Scale Test at Eglin Air Force Base, FL. Hinchee,
R.E., D.C. Downey, M.S. Westray, and J.K. Slaughter. Air Force Engineering and Services
Laboratory Technical Report. 1989.
Enhanced Bioreclamation, Soil Venting, and Groundwater Extraction: A Cost-Effectiveness and

Feasibility Comparison. Hinchee, R.E., D.C. Downey, and E. Coleman. Proceedings of the
Conference on Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Groundwater: Prevention,
Detection, and Restoration. 1988.
Enhanced In Situ Biodegradation: Uncontrolled Decomposition of Hydrogen Peroxide by Bacteria

.
Spain, J.C., D.C. Downey, and J.D. Milligan. Groundwater. 27:163-167. 1989.
Enhancing Biodegradation of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Fuels in the Vadose Zone through Soil
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-24
REFERENCES BY TOPIC
Venting. Hinchee, R.E., D.C. Downey, and T.C. Beard. Proceedings — API/NWWA Conference:
Petroleum Hydrocarbons in the Subsurface Environment. pp. 235-248. 1989.
Enhancing Biodegradation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons through Soil Venting. Hinchee, R.E., D.C.
Downey, P.K. Aggarwal, and R.N. Miller. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 27:315-325. 1991.
Formulation of Nutrient Solutions for In-Situ Bioremediation. Aggarwal, P.K., J.L. Means, and
R.E. Hinchee. Published in In-Situ Bioreclamation (R.E. Hinchee and R.F. Olfenbuttel, Editors).
pp. 51-66. 1991
In Situ Biological Degradation Test at Kelly Air Force Base, TX. Vol. 1: Site Characterization,
Lab Studies, and Treatment System Design and Installation. Wetzel, et al. Air Force Engineering
and Services Center. Apr. 1986.
In Situ Biological Degradation Test at Kelly Air Force Base, TX. Vol. 2: Field Test Results and
Cost Model. Final Report. Wetzel, et al. Air Force Engineering and Services Center.
Jul. 1987.
ESL-TR-85-52 Vol 2; NTIS: AD-A187 486/6/XAB
In Situ Biological Degradation Test at Kelly Air Force Base, TX. Vol. 3: Appendices. Final
Report. Wetzel, et al. Air Force Engineering and Services Center. Jul. 1987.
ESL-TR-85-52 Vol 3; NTIS: AD-A186 279/6/XAB
In-Situ Respirometry for Determining Aerobic Degradation Rates. Ong, S.K., R.E. Hinchee, R.
Hoeppel, and R. Scholze. Published in In-Situ Bioreclamation (R.E. Hinchee and R.F. Olfenbuttel,
Editors). pp. 541-545. 1991.
Methods to Select Chemicals for In Situ Biodegradation of Fuel Hydrocarbons. Aggarwal, P.K.,
J.L. Means, R.E. Hinchee, G.L. Headington, and A.R. Gavaskar. Jul. 1990.
ESL-TR-90-13
Monitoring In-Situ Biodegradation of Hydrocarbons Using Stable Carbon Isotopes. Aggarwal,

P.K. and R.E. Hinchee. Environmental Science and Technology. 26(6):1178-1180. 1991.
Optimizing Bioventing in Shallow Vadose Zones and Cold Climates. Leeson, A., R.E. Hinchee,
G.D. Sayles, C.M. Vogel, and R.N. Miller. Proceedings — In-Situ Bioremediation Symposium.
Ontario, Canada. 1992.
Performance of Selected In-Situ Soil Decontamination Technologies: An Air Force Perspective.

Downey, D.C. and M.G. Elliott. Environmental Progress. 9:169-173. 1990.
Preliminary Development of a Bench-Scale Treatment System for Aerobic Degradation of

Trichloroethylene. Nelson, M.J.K., A.W. Bourquin, and P.H. Pritchard. Proceedings — Reducing
Risks from Environmental Chemicals through Biotechnology Conference. University of Washington.
1987.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-25
Surface Based Biological Treatment of TCE Contaminated Groundwater. Battelle Columbus Final
Report to the U.S. Air Force.
ESL-TR-90-03
The Role of Hydrogen Peroxide Stability in Enhanced Bioreclamation Effectiveness. Hinchee,

R.E., D.C. Downey, and E. Voudrias. Proceedings — NWWA/API Conference on Petroleum
Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Groundwater. Houston, TX. 1988.
Use of Hydrogen Peroxide as an Oxygen Sourcefor In-Situ Biodegradation: Part I, Field Studies.
Hinchee, R.E., D.C. Downey, and P.K. Aggarwal. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 27:315-325.
1991.
Use of Hydrogen Peroxide as an Oxygen Source for In-Situ Biodegradation: Part II, Laboratory
Studies. Aggarwal, P.K., J.L. Means, D.C. Downey, and R.E. Hinchee. Journal of Hazardous
Materials. 27:301-314. 1991.
Use of Methanotrophs in an Above-Ground Reactor To Treat Groundwater Contaminated with

Trichloroethylene. Allen, B.R., D.W. Anderson, and R.A. Ashworth. Proceedings of the Conference
on Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Groundwater: Prevention, Detection, and
Restoration. 1988.
U.S. Army
Biogrowth Control Mechanisms. U.S. Army Environmental Center. June 1986.

CETHA-TS-CR-91070
Biotreatment of Gaseous-Phase Volatile Organic Compounds. U.S. Army Environmental Center.

Jan. 1991.
CETHA-TE-CR-89061
Composting Explosives/Organics Contaminated Soils. Doyle, R.C., et al. U.S. Army

Environmental Center. May 1986.
AMXTH-TE-CR-86077
Composting of Explosive-Contaminated Soil Technology. U.S. Army Environmental Center. Oct.

1989.
CETHA-TE-CR-90027
Field Demonstration — Composting of Propellants Contaminated Sediments at the Badger Army

Ammunition Plant (BAAP). U.S. Army Environmental Center. Mar. 1989.
CETHA-TE-CR-89061
Field Demonstration — Composting of Explosives-Contaminated Sediments at the Louisiana Army

Ammunition Plant (LAAP). Williams, R.T., P.S. Ziegenfuss, and P.J. Marks. U.S. Army
Environmental Center. Sept. 1988.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-26
REFERENCES BY TOPIC
AMXTH-IR-TE-88242
Final Technical Report: Evaluation of Composting Implementation. U.S. Army Environmental

Center. Aug. 1989.
Final Technical Report: Proceedings for the Workshop on Composting of Explosives

Contaminated Soils. U.S. Army Environmental Center. Sept. 1989.
CETHA-TS-SR-89276
Literature Review of Biodegradation in Soil of Selected Rocky Mountain Arsenal Contamination:

Isodrin, Dieldrin, Diisopropylmethylphosphate, 1, 2-Dibromo-3-Chloro-propane, and p-Chloro-
Phenylmethylsulfoxide. U.S. Army Environmental Center. Apr. 1987.
CETHA-TS-CR-91065
Process and Economic Feasibility of Using Composting Technology to Treat Waste Nitrocellulose
Fines. U.S. Army Environmental Center. March 1991.
CETHA-TE-CR-91012
Reclamation of Metals from Water with a Silage-Microbe Ecosystem. U.S. Army Environmental
Center. March 1991.
CETHA-TE-CR-91037
Task Order 11: Biodegradation of DIMP, Dieldrin, Isodrin, DBCP, and PCPMSO in Rocky
Mountain Arsenal Soils. U.S. Army Environmental Center. Jan. 1989.
CETHA-TE-CR-89006
U.S. Navy
Biodecontamination of Fuel Oil Spill Located at NAVCOMMSTA, Thurso, Scotland: Final

Report. Polybac Corporation, U.S. Naval Station, Point Mugu, CA. Dec. 1985.
Biodegradation for On-Site Remediation of Contaminated Soils and Groundwater at Navy Sites.
Hoeppel, R.E. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory. 1989.
Bioreclamation Studies of Subsurface Hydrocarbon Contamination, NAS Patuxent River, MD.

Groundwater Technology, Inc. Dec. 1988.
Bioventing Soils Contaminated with Petroleum Hydrocarbons. Hoeppel, R.E., R.E. Hinchee, and
M.F. Arthur. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory. Journal of Industrial Microbiology. 8:141-146.
May 1991.
Combined In Situ Technologies for Reclamation of Jet Fuel Contamination at a Maryland Fuel
Farm. Hoeppel, R.E. Oct. 1989.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-27
Design/Construction/Installation of Large Soil Columns, And Development/Testing of Innovative

Soil Aeration Methods to Stimulate In Situ Biodegradation. Arthur, M.F., T.C. Zwick, and G.K.
O'Brien. Battelle Laboratories, Columbus, OH. Jul. 1988.
Evaluation of Innovative Approaches to Stimulate Degradation of Jet Fuels in Subsoils and

Groundwater. Arthur, M.F., G.K. O'Brien, S.S. Marsh, and T.C. Zwick. Battelle Laboratories,
Columbus, OH. Aug. 1989.
In Situ Bioreclamation — Applications and Investigations for Hydrocarbon and Contaminated Site
Remediation. Hinchee, R.E. and R.F. Olfenbuttel (Eds). Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory.
Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, MA. 1991.
In Situ Generation of Oxygen by Electrolysis and the Electrochemical Effects on Microorganisms'

Population. Han, M.K., R.E. Wyza, and R.F. Olfenbuttel. Battelle Laboratories, Columbus, OH.
Nov. 1991.
Literature Survey on Landfarming for Bioreclamation of Fuel-Contaminated Soil at Twenty Nine

Palms, California. Taback, H.J. and K. Khan. AeroVironment Inc., Monrovia, CA. Dec. 1987.
Removal of Aqueous Phase Petroleum Products in Groundwater by Aeration. Wickramanayake,

G.B., M.F. Arthur, A.J. Pollack, and S. Krishan. Battelle Laboratories, Columbus, OH. Dec. 1988.
Technology Review: In Situ/On-Site Biodegradation of Refined Oils and Fuel. Riser, E. Sept.
1988.
? 5.2.7 Physical/Chemical
EPA
Advanced Oxidation Processes for Treating Groundwater Contaminated with TCE (Trichloro-
ethylene) and PCE (Tetrachloroethylene): Lab Studies. (Journal Version). Glaze, W.H. and J.W.
Kang. Water Engineering Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH. 1988.
EPA/600/J-88/114
Applications Analysis Report (SITE Program) — AWD Technologies: In Situ Vapor Extraction and
Steam Vacuum Stripping.
EPA/540/A5-91/002
Applications Analysis Report (SITE Program) — AWD Technologies: Integrated

AquaDetox®/SVE Technology.
EPA/540/A5-89/003.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-28
REFERENCES BY TOPIC
Applications Analysis Report (SITE Program) — BioTrol, Inc.: Soils Washing.

EPA/540/A5-91/003
Applications Analysis Report (SITE Program) — CF Systems Organics Extraction System, New
Bedford, MA. Volume I.
EPA/540/5-90/002
Applications Analysis Report (SITE Program) — CF Systems Organics Extraction System, New
Bedford, MA. Volume II.
EPA/540/5-90/002a
Applications Analysis Report (SITE Program) — Dehydrotech Corp.: The Carver-Greenfield

Process.
EPA/540/AR-92/002; NTIS: PB93-101152
Applications Analysis Report (SITE Program) — Dupont/Oberlin: Microfiltration Technology.

EPA/540/A5-90/007; NTIS: PB92-119023
Applications Analysis Report (SITE Program) — NOVATerra, Inc.: In Situ Steam/Hot Air
Stripping.
EPA/540/5-90/008
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-29
Applications Analysis Report (SITE Program) — Toxics Treatment, Inc.: In Situ Steam/Hot Air
Soil Stripping.
EPA/540/5-90/003; NTIS: PB91-181768
Applications Analysis Report (SITE Program) — Ultrox International: Ultraviolet Ozone

Treatment for Liquids.
EPA/540/5-89/012
Catalytic Dehydrohalogenation: A Chemical Destruction Method for Halogenated Organics.

EPA/600/2-86/113
Chemical Destruction/Detoxification of Chlorinated Dioxins in Soils. Peterson, R.L. and

C.J. Rogers. Proceedings, llth Annual Research Symposium, Cincinnati, OH. pp. 106-11. 1985.
EPA/600/9-85/028
Cleaning Excavated Soil Using Extraction Agents: A State-of-the-Art Review.

NTIS: PB 89-212757/AS
Comprehensive Report on the KPEG Process for Treating Chlorinated Wastes.

EPA/600/2-90/005; NTIS: PB 90-163643/AS
Demonstration Bulletin (SITE Program) — Bergman USA: Soil/Sediment Washington System.

EPA/540/MR-92/075
Demonstration Bulletin (SITE Program) — Resources Conservation Co.: The Basic Extractive
Sludge Treatment (B.A.S.I.C.).
EPA/540/MR-92/079
Demonstration Bulletin (SITE Program) — SBP Technologies: Membrane Microfiltration.

EPA/540/MR-92/014
Demonstration Bulletin (SITE Program) — Toronto Harbour Commissioners: Soil Recycling

Treatment Train.
EPA/540/MR-92/015
Destruction of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons by Catalytic Oxidation. Joint EPA and AFESC Report
published by EPA.
EPA/600/2-86/079
Development of Electroacoustical Soil Decontamination (ESD) Process for In Situ Application.

EPA/540/5-90/004
Development of Chemical Countermeasuresfor Hazardous Waste Contaminated Soil.

EPA/600/D-84/039
Engineering Bulletin — Chemical Dehalogenation: APEG Treatment.

EPA/540/2-90/015
Engineering Bulletin: Chemical Oxidation Treatment.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-30
REFERENCES BY TOPIC
EPA/540/2-91/025
Engineering Bulletin: In Situ Soil Flushing.

EPA/540/2-91/021
Engineering Bulletin: In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction.

EPA/540/2-91/006
Engineering Bulletin — In Situ Steam Extraction.

EPA/540/2-91/005
Engineering Bulletin — Soil Washing Treatment.

EPA/540/2-90/017
Engineering Bulletin — Solvent Extraction Treatment.

EPA/540/2-90/013
Engineering Bulletin — Supercritical Water Oxidation.

EPA/540/S-92/006
Evaluation of BEST? Solvent Extraction Sludge Treatment Technology 24-Hour Test.

NTIS: PB88-245907
Evaluation of Soil Venting Application.

EPA/540/S-92/004; NTIS: PB92-232362
Field Applications of the KPEG Process for Treating Chlorinated Wastes.

EPA/600/2-89/036
Field Studies of In Situ Soil Washing. Nash, J.H., Mason and Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc.,
Leonardo, NJ. Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH.
Dec. 1987.
EPA/600/2-87/110; NTIS: PB88-146808/XAB
Innovative Technology: BEST Solvent Extraction Process.

Innovative Technology: Glycolate Dehalogenation.

Innovative Technology: Soil Washing.

Interim Report on the Feasibility of Using UV (Ultraviolet) Photolysis and APEG (Alkali Poly-
ethylene Glycolate) Reagent for Treatment of Dioxin Contaminated Soils.
EPA/600/2-85/083
Method for the Supercritical Fluid Extraction of Soils/Sediments.

EPA/600/4-90/026; NTIS: PB91-127803/CCE
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-31
Mobile System for Extracting Spilled Hazardous Materials from Excavated Soils.
EPA/600/2-83/100
PCB Destruction: A Novel Dehalogenation Reagent.

EPA/600/J-85/407
Report on the Feasibility of APEG: Detoxification of Dioxin-Contaminated Soils.

EPA/600/2-84/071
Sequential Dehalogenation of Chlorinated Ethenes.

EPA/600/J-86/030
Soil Vapor Extraction Technology: Reference Handbook.

EPA/540/2-91/003
State of Technology Review: Soil Vapor Extraction Systems.

NTIS: PB 89-195184
Technology Evaluation Report — U.S. EPA, RREL: Debris Washing System .

EPA/540/5-91/006
Treating Chlorinated Wastes with the KPEG Process.

EPA/600/S2-90/026
Treatment of Contaminated Soils with Aqueous Surfactants. Ellis, W.D., J.R. Payne, and G.D.
McNabb. 1985.
EPA/600/2-85/129
U.S. EPA's Mobile In Situ Containment/Treatment Unit.

Videocassette from EPA, Edison, NJ
U.S. EPA's Mobile Soil Washing System.

Videocassette from EPA, Edison, NJ
DOE
Analytical Solutions for Steady State Gas Flow to a Soil Vapor Extraction Well in the Unsaturated
Zone. Shan, C, R.W. Falta, and I. Javandel. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, DOE, Berkeley, CA.
1991.
LBL-30924
Application of Soil Venting at a Large Scale: A Data and Modeling Analysis.

NTIS: DE91001995/XAB
Cryogenic Barrier Enhanced Soil Cleanup, A Literature Review. University of Idaho.

EG&G Report to be published (Contact DOE, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.)
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-32
REFERENCES BY TOPIC
An Evaluation of the Use of an Advanced Oxidation Process to Remove Chlorinated Hydrocarbons

from Groundwater at the U.S. Department of Energy Kansas City Plant. FY 1989 Annual Report.
Garland, S.B. II, and G.R. Payton. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, DOE, TN. Oct. 1990.
ORNL/TM-11337
An Evaluation of the Use of a Combination of Ozone-Ultraviolet Radiation and Hydrogen

Peroxide to Remove Chlorinated Hydrocarbons from Groundwater at the U.S. Department of
Energy Kansas City Plant. FY 1988 Annual Report. Garland, S.B. II. Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, DOE, TN. May 1989.
Feasibility Testing of In Situ Vitrification on Arnold Engineering Development Center

Contaminated soils. Timmerman, C.L. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, DOE, Richland, WA. Mar.
1989.
ORNL/Sub-88-14384/1; NTIS or OSTI: DE89008976
In Situ Air Stripping: Cost Effectiveness of a Remediation Technology Field Tested at Savannah
River Integrated Demonstration Site.
LA-UR-92-1927
In Situ Vitrification: A Review. Cole, L.L., and D.E. Fields. Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
DOE, TN. Nov. 1989.
In Situ Vitrification, Heat and Immobilization are Combined for Soil Remediation. Fitzpatrick, V.,
and J. Hansen. Geosafe Corp., Kirkland, WA. Hazmat World. 2(12): 30-34. Dec. 1989.
In Situ Vitrification of PCB (Polychlorinated Biphenyl)-Contaminated Soils: Final Report.

Timmerman, C.L. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, DOE, Richland, WA. Oct. 1986.
EPRI-CS-4839; NTIS or OSTI: DE87003328
In Situ Vitrification: Test Results for a Contaminated Soil-Melting Process, Supplement 1. Buelt,
J.L., C.L. Timmerman, and J.H. Westsik, Jr. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, DOE, Richland, WA.
Oct. 1989.
PNL-SA-15767-Suppl. 1; NTIS or OSTI: DE90005231
In Situ Vitrification of Transuranic Wastes: An Updated Systems Evaluation and Applications

Assessment. Buelt, J.L., C.L. Timmerman, K.H. Oma, V.F. Fitzpatrick, and J.G. Carter. Pacific
Northwest Laboratory, DOE, Richland, WA. Mar. 1987.
PNL-4800-Suppl. 1; NTIS or OSTI: DE87007356
Remediation of Contaminated Soil Using Heap Leach Mining Technology. Tork, D.A. and
P.L. Aamodt. Los Alamos National Laboratory, DOE, NM. 1990.
LAUR-90-701; NTIS or OSTI: DE90007510
Steam Stripping and Batch Distillation for the Removal/Recovery of Volatile Organic Compounds.
Hassan, S.Q., and J.P. Herrin. Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cincinnati
University, Cincinnati, OH. 1989.
NTIS: PB 89-218796/XAB
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-33
DOI
Acid Leach Processing of an Arsenic-Containing Copper Waste. Gritton, K.S. and J.E. Gebhardt.
Published in Proceedings of the Western Regional Symposium on Mining and Mineral Processing
Wastes, Berkeley, CA, May 30 - June 1, 1990.
Alternatives for Treatment of Arsenic-Containing Copper Industrial Bleed Streams. Gritton, K.S.
and J.E. Gebhardt. Published in Proceedings of the COPPER 91 — COBRE 91 International
Symposium, Ottawa, Canada, August 18-21, 1991.
Copper Extraction from Aqueous Solutions with Liquid Emulsion Membranes: A Preliminary
Laboratory Study. Nilsen, D.N., B.W. Jong, and A.M. Stubbs. Bureau of Mines Report of
Investigation 9375, 1991.
Development and Evaluation of a Laboratory-Scale Continuous Circuit for the Extraction of

Copper with Emulsion Membranes in Hydrometallury and Electrometallurgy of Copper. Nilsen,
D.N. and G.L. Hundley. Published in Proceedings of the Copper 91-Cobre 91 International
Symposium, Ottawa, Canada, August 18-21, 1991.
Evaluation of the Performance of a Laboratory-scale Continuous Circuit for the recovery of

Copper. Nilsen, D.N. and G.L. Hundley. Presented at an "Open Industry Briefing," Annual Meeting
of the Arizona Section of AIME, Tucson, Arizona, Dec. 6-7, 1992.
Extraction of Cu from Mine Drainage Solution with Liquid Emulsion Membranes: A Preliminary
Laboratory Study. Nilsen, D.N. and A.M. Stubbs. Presented at Pacific NW Metals and Minerals
Conference, Portland, Oregon, April 22-24, 1990.
Liquid Emulsion Membrane for Wastewater Cleanup (Briefing Sheet). O'Hare, S.A. and D.N.
Nilsen. 1992.
Metal Recovery from Acid-Leach Processing of Arsenic-Containing Copper Wastes. Steele, D.K.
and K.S. Gritton. Presented at the 1991 SME Annual Meeting.
Metal Recovery from Metallurgical Wastes. Gritton, K.S., L.J. Froisland, M.B. Shirts, and J.E.
Gebhardt. Presented at the SME Annual Meeting. 1990.
Selenium Removal with Ferrous Hydroxide. Moody, C.D. and A.P. Murphy. Proceedings of Toxic
Substances in Agricultural Water Supply and Drainage, U.S. Committee on Irrigation and Drainage,
pp. 231-241. Jun. 1989.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-34
REFERENCES BY TOPIC
Available from Bureau of Reclamation
U.S. Air Force
In Situ Decontamination by RadiofrequencyHeating — Field Test. Dev, H., J. Enk, G. Stresty,

J. Bridges, and D. Downey. Sept. 1989.
Radio Frequency/Vapor Extraction Technology To Treat Hydrocarbons in Soil. Looney, B.

Savannah River Plant, Aiken, SC. 1992-93.
Removal of Volatile Organics from Humidified Air Streams by Absorption. Coutnat, R.W.,
T. Zwick, and B.C. Kim. Dec. 1987.
ESL-TR-87-24
Surfactant-Enhanced In Situ Soils Washing. Nash, J., R. Traver, and D.C. Downey. Sept. 1987.
Vapor-Phase Catalytic Oxidation of Mixed Volatile Organic Compounds. Greene, H. University of

Akron, Akron, OH. Sept. 1989.
ESL-TR-89-12
U.S. Army
Adsorption and Desorption of Dinitrotoluene on Activated Carbon. U.S. Army Environmental

Center. Aug. 1987.
CETHA-TS-CR-91048
Arsenic Contaminated Treatment Pilot Study at the Sharpe Army Depot (SHAD) Lathrope, CA:
Final Technical Report. U.S. Army Environmental Center. Dec. 1990.
CETHA-TS-CR-90184
Bench-Scale Investigation of Air Stripping of Volatile Organic Compounds from Soil: Technical
Report. McDevitt, N.P., J.W. Noland, and P.J. Marks. U.S. Army Environmental Center. Aug.
1986.
AMXTH-TE-CR-86092
Demonstration Testing of Plastic Media Blasting (PMB) at Letterkenny Army Depot. U.S. Army
Environmental Center. Jan. 1989.
Draft Final Report for Pilot Demonstration of an Air Stripping Technology for the Treatment of
Groundwater Contaminated with Volatile Organic Compounds at Sharpe Army Depot. U.S. Army
Environmental Center.
CETHA-TS-CR-91071
Engineering and Development Support of General Decontamination Technology for the DARCOM
Installation Restoration Program Task 4. Desensitization of Explosive-Laden Soils/Sediments,
Phase II — Lab Studies. U.S. Army Environmental Center. Mar. 84-Nov. 85.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-35
DRXTH-TE-CR-83207; NTIS: AD-A162 456/8/XAB
Evaluation of Ultraviolet/Ozone Treatment of Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA) Groundwater.

Buhts, R., P. Malone, and D. Thompson. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment
Station Technical Report. 1978.
Report No. Y-78-1
Final Technical Report: Bench Scale Investigation of Low Temperature Thermal Stripping of
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) from Various Soil Types. U.S. Army Environmental Center.
Nov. 1987.
AMXTH-TE-CR-87124
Final Technical Report: Demonstration of Thermal Stripping of JP-4 and Other VOCs from Soils
at Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. U.S. Army Environmental Center. March
1990.
CETHA-TE-CR-90026
Final Technical Report: Economic Evaluation of Low Temperature Thermal Stripping of Volatile
Organic Compounds from Soil. U.S. Army Environmental Center. Aug. 1986.
AMXTH-TE-CR-86085
Final Technical Report: Pilot Investigation of Low Temperature Thermal Stripping of Volatile
Organic Compounds from Soil (2 Vols). U.S. Army Environmental Center. June 1986.
AMXTH-TE-TR-86074
Final Technical Report: Use of Activated Carbon for Treatment of Explosive-Contaminated

Groundwater at the Badger Army Ammunition Plant (BAAP). U.S. Army Environmental Center.
Aug. 1989.
CETHA-CR-89216
Final Technical Report: Use of Activated Carbon for Treatment of Explosive-Contaminated

Groundwater at the Milan Army Munitions Plant (MAAP). U.S. Army Environmental Center. May
1990.
CETHA-CR-90041
Heavy Metal Contaminated Soil Treatment. Roy F. Weston, Inc. U.S. Army Environmental Center.
Feb. 1987.
AMXTH-TE-CR-86101
In Situ Air Stripping of Soils Pilot Study: Final Report. Anastos, G.J., et al. U.S. Army
Environmental Center. Oct. 1985.
AMXTH-TE-TR-85026
In Situ Volatilization Remedial System Cost Analysis: Technical Report. Metzer, N., et al. U.S.
Army Environmental Center. Aug. 1987.
AMXTH-TE-CR-87123
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-36
REFERENCES BY TOPIC
Laboratory Study of In Situ Volatilization Technology Applied to Fort Campbell Soils

Contaminated with JP-4: Final Report. Marks, P., et al. U.S. Army Environmental Center. May
1987.
Laboratory Study of In Situ Volatilization Technology Applied to Letterkenny Army Depot Soils.
U.S. Army Environmental Center. Mar. 1988.
AMXTH-TE-CR-88009
Soil Washing Development Program and Demonstration Test on Basin F Materials. Arthur D.
Little, Inc. U.S. Army Environmental Center. May 1988.
AMXTH-TE-CR-86016
Technical and Economic Evaluation of Air Stripping for Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)
Removal from Contaminated Groundwater at Selected Army Sites. Tennessee Valley Authority
National Fertilizer and Environmental Research Center, Muscle Shoals, AL. Jul. 1991.
CETHA-TE-91023
Use of Vapor Extraction Systems for In Situ Removal of Volatile Organic Compounds from Soil.
Bennedsen, H.B., J.P. Scott, and J.D. Hartley. U.S. Army Environmental Center. Mar. 1987.
U.S. Navy
Advanced Oxidation Process for Treatment of Contaminated Groundwater. Olah and Law. Naval
Civil Engineering Laboratory. 71-080 20#T357104.
TM-71-90-2
Chemical Dehalogenation Treatment: Base-Catalyzed Decomposition Process (BCDP). Chan,

D.B. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory. Aug. 1991.
Technical Data Sheet.
Demonstration of PCB Dechlorination Using Base-Catalyzed Decomposition. Rogers, C. Naval

Civil Engineering Laboratory. Oct. 1990.
Evaluation of Combined Treatment Technology for Navy Remediation Site Groups (PACT Process).
Barber, D.B. and L.W. Canter. Environmental and Ground Water Institute, University of Oklahoma.
Dec. 1989.
Evaluation of Photochemical Oxidation Technology for Navy Remediation Site Groups. Paul, D.
and L.W. Canter. University of Oklahoma. Dec. 1989.
Evaluation of Processes to Chemically Treat PCBs and Hazardous Materials. Hinchee, R.E., G.B.
Wickramanayake, B.C. Kim and H. Nack. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory. Dec. 1989.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-37
Initial Feasibility Report: Investigation of Photochemical Oxidative Techniques for Treatment of

Contaminated Groundwater. Olah and Law. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory. 71-080.
TM-71-90-9
Test Report: KPEG Process for Treating Chlorinated Wastes. PEI Associates. Sept. 1989.
Treatment of Navy Landfill Leachate Contaminated with Low Levels of Priority Pollutants. Jue, C.
and R.W. Regan, Sr. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory. Oct. 1991.
? 5.2.8 Community Relations
EPA
A Citizen's Guide To Innovative Treatment Technologies for Contaminated Soils, Sludges,

Sediments, and Debris.
EPA/542/F-92/001
EPA/542/f-92/014 (Spanish)
A Citizen's Guide To How Innovative Treatment Technologies Are Being Successfully Applied at
Superfund Sites.
EPA/542/F-92/002
EPA/542/F-92/015 (Spanish)
A Citizen's Guide To Soil Washing.

EPA/542/F-92/003
A Citizen's Guide To Solvent Extraction.

EPA/542/F-92/004
A Citizen's Guide To Glycolate Dehalogenation.

EPA/542/F-92/005
EPA/542/F-92/-18 (Spanish)
A Citizen's Guide To Thermal Desorption.

EPA/542/F-92/006
A Citizen's Guide To In Situ Soil Flushing.

EPA/542/F-92/007
A Citizen's Guide To Bioventing.

EPA/542/F-92/008
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-38
REFERENCES BY TOPIC
A Citizen's Guide To Using Indigenous and Exogenous Microorganisms in Bioremediation.

EPA/542/F-92/009
A Citizen's Guide To Air Sparging.

EPA/542/F-92/010
Understanding Bioremediation: A Guidebook for Citizens.

EPA/540/2-91/002
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-39
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-40
REFERENCES BY AUTHOR
? 5.3 LISTING BY AUTHOR
The following is a complete listing of all references presented in the source documents (see
Appendix E):
ABB Environmental Services, Inc., undated. "ABB-ES Two-Zone Plume-Interception Treatment

Technology," Environmental Product Profiles, National Environmental Technology Applications
Corporation.
Accutech, 1993. Pneumatic Fracturing Extraction and Hot Gas Injection, Phase I, includes
Technology Evaluation, EPA Report EPA/540/R-93/509, Technology Demonstration, Summary,
EPA Report EPA/540/SR-93/509; Demonstration Bulletin, EPA Report EPA/540/MR-93/509; and
Applications Analysis, EPA Report EPA/540/AR-93/509.
Adams, J.Q. and R.M. Clark, January 1991. "Evaluating the Costs of Packed Tower Aeration
and GAC for Controlling Selected Organics," Journal of the American Water Works Association,
pp. 49-57.
Aggarwal, P.K., J.L. Means, R.E. Hinchee, G.L. Headington, and A.R. Gavaskar, July 1990.
Methods To Select Chemicals for In-Situ Biodegradation of Fuel Hydrocarbons, Air Force
Engineering & Services Center, Tyndall AFB.
Alleman, B. 1991. Degradation of Pentachlorophenol by Selected Species of White Rot Fungi,

Ph.D. Thesis, University of Arizona.
American Petroleum Institute, 1989. A Guide to the Assessment and Remediation of

Underground Petroleum Releases, Publication 1628, API, Washington, DC, 81 pp.
Anderson, W.C., 1993. Innovative Site Remediation Technology — Thermal Desorption,

American Academy of Environmental Engineers.
Arthur, M.F., T.C. Zwick, G.K. O'Brien, and R.E. Hoeppel, 1988. "Laboratory Studies To
Support Microbially Mediated In-Situ Soil Remediation," in 1988 DOE Model Conference
Proceedings, Vol. 3, NTIS Document No. PC A14/MF A01, as cited in Energy Research Abstracts
EDB-89:134046, TIC Accession No. DE89014702.
Atlas, R.M., 1981. "Microbial Degradation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons: An Environmental

Perspective," Microbiology Review, Vol., 45, pp. 180-209, as cited by Aggerwal et al., July 1990.
Averett, D.E., B.D. Perry, and E.J. Torrey, 1989. Review of Removal, Containment, and
Treatment Technologies for Remediation of Contaminated Sediment in the Great Lakes,
Prepared for EPA by USACE-WES, Vicksburg, MS.
AWMA and HWAC (Air and Waste Management Association and the Hazardous Waste Action
Council), 1992. Bioremediation: The State of Practice in Hazardous Waste Remediation
Operations, a Live Satellite Seminar Jointly Sponsored by AWMA and HWAC, AWMA, Pittsburgh,
PA, 9 January 1992.
AWMA and HWAC, April 1992. Bioventing and Vapor Extraction: Uses and Applications in
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-41
Remediation Operations, AWMA and the HWAC Satellite Seminar, AWMA, Pittsburgh, PA.
Ayorinde, O. and M. Reynolds, December 1989. "Low Temperature Effect on Systems for
Composting Explosives-Contaminated Soils," Part I, Literature Review, U.S. Army CRREL.
Bailey, G.W., and J.L. White, 1970. "Factors Influencing the Absorption, Desorption, and
Movement of Pesticides in Soil," in Residue Reviews, F.A. Gunther and J.D. Gunther, Editors,
Springer Verlag, pp. 29-92.
Balaso, C.A., et al., 1986. Soluble Sulfide Precipitation Study, Arthur D. Little, Inc., Final Report
to USATHAMA, Report No. AMXTH-TE-CR-87106.
Barich, J.T., May 1990. "Ultraviolet Radiation/Oxidation of Organic Contaminants in Ground,

Waste and Drinking Waters," in Proceedings of the Second Forum on Innovative Hazardous
Waste Treatment Technologies: Domestic and International, EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-
90/010.
Barker, J.F., et al., 1987. "Natural Attenuation of Aromatic Hydrocarbons in a Shallow Sand
Aquifer," Groundwater Monitoring Review, Winter 1987.
Barker, J.F., G.C. Patrick, and D. Major, Winter 1987. "Natural Attenuation of Aromatic
Hydrocarbons in a Shallow Sand Aquifer," Groundwater Monitoring Review, pp. 64-71.
Barnhart, Michael J. and Julian M. Myers, October 1990. "Pilot Bioremediation Tells All About
Petroleum Contaminated Soil,"Pollution Engineering, Vol. XXI, No. 11, pp. 110-113.
Barth, E.F., April 1991. "Summary Results of the SITE Demonstration for the CHEMFIX
Solidification/Stabilization Process," in Proceedings of the 17th Annual RREL Hazardous Waste
Research Symposium, EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/600/9-91/002.
Basu, T.K., A. Selvakumar, and R. Gaire, undated. Selection of Control Technologies for
Remediation of Lead Battery Recycling Sites, Prepared by Foster Wheeler Envirosponse, Inc. for
EPA, RREL and ORD, Cincinnati, OH.
Bennedsen, M.B., February 1987. "Vacuum VOCs from Soil," Pollution Engineering, 19:(2).
Bennedsen, M.B., J.P. Scott, and J.D. Hartley, 1985. "Use of Vapor Extraction Systems for In
Situ Removal of Volatile Organic Compounds from Soil,"in Proceedings of National Conference
on Hazardous Wastes and Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute
(HMCRI), pp. 92-95, as cited by Hutzler et al., 1989.
Bioremediation Service, Inc., Winter 1990/91a. "Microbial Environments," Biologic, Vol. 1, No.
1, pp. 1.
Bioremediation Service, Inc., Winter 1990/91b. "Advanced Soil Conditioning Equipment

Delivered," Biologic, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1.
Biotrol, Inc., Fall 1990. "EPA Awards Emerging Technology Grant to Biotrol," Bioline, Vol. 2.,
No. 2., pp. 1-2.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-42
Bohn, H., April 1992. "Consider Biofiltration for Decontaminating Gases," Chemical
Engineering Progress, pp. 34-40.
Borden, R.C., M.D. Lee, J.M. Thomas, P.B. Bedient, and C.H. Ward, Winter 1989. "In Situ
Measurement and Numerical Simulation of Oxygen Limited Biotransformation,"Groundwater
Monitoring Review, pp. 83-91.
Bourquin, A.W., September/October 1989. "Bioremediation of Hazardous Waste," HMC, pp.
50-51.
Bouwer, E.J., and P.L. McCarty, 1983. "Transformation of Halogenated Organic Compounds
Under Denitrification Conditions," Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 45:1295-1299.
Bouwer, E.J., and J.P. Wright, 1988. "Transformation of Trace Halogenated Aliphatics in
Anoxic Biofilm Columns," Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 2:155-169.
Bricka, M., C.W. Williford, and L.W. Jones, December 1993. Technology Assessment of Currently
Available and Developmental Techniques for Heavy Metals-Contaminated Soils Treatment,
Prepared for USACE-WES, Environmental Laboratory.
Bricka, R. Mark, 1988. Investigation and Evaluation of the Performance of Solidified Cellulose
and Starch Xanthate Heavy Metal Sludges, USACE-WES Technical Report EL-88-5.
Bricka, R.M., et al., 1988. An Evaluation of Stabilization/Solidification of Fluidized Bed
Incineration Ash (K048 and K051), USAE-WES Technical Report EL-88-24.
Brown, R.A. and R.T. Cartwright, October 1990. "Biotreat Sludges and Soils," Hydrocarbon
Processing, pp. 93-96.
Brubaker, Gaylen R., April 1989. Screening Criteria for In-Situ Bioreclamation of Contaminated
Aquifers, Presented at Hazardous Wastes and Hazardous Materials Conference, New Orleans.
Buhts, R., P. Malone, and D. Thompson, 1978. Evaluation of Ultra-Violet/Ozone Treatment of
Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA) Groundwater, USAE-WES Technical Report No. Y-78-1.
Bumpus, J.A., and S.D. Aust, 1985. "Studies on the Biodegradation of Organopollutants by a
White Rot Fungus," in Proceedings of the International Conference on New Frontiers for
Hazardous Waste Management, 15-18 September 1985, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 404-410, EPA/600/9-
85/025.
Burris, D.R. and J.A. Cherry, June 1992. Emerging Plume Management Technologies: In Situ
Treatment Zones, Paper presented at the 85th Annual Meeting of the AWMA, Pittsburgh, PA,
Manuscript 92-34.04.
California Base Closure Environmental Committee, November 1993. Treatment Technologies
Matrix for Base Closure Activities.
Canonie Environmental Services Corporation, 1990. Low Temperature Thermal Aeration, Soil
Remediation Services, Porter, IN.
Canter, L.W. and R.C. Knox, 1985. Groundwater Pollution Control, Lewis Publishers, Inc.,
Chelsea, MI.
Canter, Larry W., April 1989. Groundwater and Soil Contamination Remediation: Toward
Compatible Science, Policy and Public Perception, Report on a Colloquium Sponsored by the
Water Science and Technology Board, National Academy Press.
Christman, P.L. and A.M. Collins, April 1990. "Treatment of Organic Contaminated
Groundwater by Using Ultraviolet Light and Hydrogen Peroxide," from Proceedings of the
Annual Army Environmental Symposium, USATHAMA Report CETHA-TE-TR-90055.
Church, H.K., 1981. Excavation Handbook, McGraw Hill Book Company, New York, NY.
Circeo, Louis J., Ph.D., 1991. Destruction and Vitrification of Asbestos Using Plasma Arc
Technology, Georgia Institute of Technology for USACERL, Champaign, IL.
Coe, C.J., 1986. "Ground Water Restoration Using Bioreclamation in Fractured Pennsylvanian
Bedrock," in Proceedings of the Sixth National Symposium and Exposition on Aquifer Restoration
and Ground Water Monitoring, pp. 413-424, National Water Well Association.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-43
Connor, J.R., 1990. Chemical Fixation and Solidification of Hazardous Wastes, Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York, NY.
Connor, J.R., January 1988. "Case Study of Soil Venting," Pollution Engineering, 20:(1).
Corbitt, R.A., 1989. Standard Handbook of Environmental Engineering, McGraw-Hill, Inc.,
New York, NY.
Cowherd, Chatten, et al., March 1989. "An Apparatus and Methodology for Predicting
Dustiness of Materials," American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal,Vol. 50, No. 3.
Crittenden, J.C., R.D. Cortright, B. Rick, S-R Tang, and D. Perram, May 1988. "Using GAC To
Remove VOCs from Air Stripper Off-Gas," Journal of the American Water Works Association,
pp. 73-84.
Cudahy, J.J. and W.L. Troxier, 1990. 1990 Thermal Remediation Industry Contractor Survey,
Prepared by Focus Environmental, Inc. for AWMA, Pittsburgh, PA.
Danko, J. P., M.J. McCann, and W.D. Byers, May 1990. "Soil Vapor Extraction and Treatment
of VOCs at a Superfund Site in Michigan," in Proceedings of the Second Forum on Innovative
Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies: Domestic and International, EPA, Washington, DC,
EPA/540/2-90/010.
de Percin, P., 1991. Thermal Desorption Technologies, Superfund Technology Demonstration
Division, AWMA Conference, Vancouver, BC, EPA, RREL, Cincinnati, OH.
de Percin, P., 1991. Thermal Desorption Attainable Remediation Levels, Superfund Technology
Demonstration Division, EPA, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) Symposium,
Cincinnati, OH.
DePaoli, David W., James H. Wilson, and Carl O. Thomas, August 1990. A Model for
Economically Based Conceptual Design of Soil Vapor Extraction Systems, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory.
Dev, H., G.C. Sresty, J. Enk, N. Mshaiel, and M. Love, 1989. Radiofrequency Enhanced
Decontamination of Soils Contaminated with Halogenated Hydrocarbons, EPA RREL, Office of
Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH, EPA Report EPA/600/2-89/008.
Dev, H., G.C. Sresty, J.E. Bridges, and D. Downey, 1988. "Field Test of the Radio Frequency In
Situ Soil Decontamination Process," in Superfund '88, Proceedings of the 9th National
Conference, pp. 498-502, HMCRI, Silver Spring, MD.
Dibble, J.T. and R. Bartha, 1979. "Effects of Environmental Parameters on the Biodegradation
of Oil Sludge," Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Vol. 37, pp. 729-739, as cited by
Molnaa and Grubbs (no date).
Dietrich, C., D. Treichler, and J. Armstrong, 1987. An Evaluation of Rotary Air Stripping for
Removal of Volatile Organics from Groundwater, USAF Environmental and Service Center Report
ESL-TR-86-46.
DOD (U.S. Department of Defense), August 1994. Accessing Federal Data Bases for
Contaminated Site Clean-up Technologies, Prepared by the Member Agencies of the DOD
Environmental Technology Transfer Committee.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), undated. In Situ Vitrification: Technology Status and a
Survey of New Applications, Prepared by Battelle Northwest Laboratories for DOE, Richland, WA.
DOE, undated. Technology Name: Arc Melter Vitrification, Technology Information Profile (Rev.
2) for ProTech, DOE ProTech Database, TTP Reference No.: ID-132011.
DOE, 1989. Joule-Heated Glass Furnace Processing of a Highly Aqueous Hazardous Waste
Stream, Prepared by EE&G Mound Applied Technologies for DOE, Richland, WA.
DOE, 1989. Vitrification Technologies for Weldon Spring Raffinate Sludges and Contaminated
Soils, Phase 2 Report: Screening of Alternatives, Prepared by Battelle Pacific Northwest
Laboratories for DOE, Richland, WA.
DOE, 1990. An Evaluation of the Use of an Advanced Oxidation Process To Remove
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-44
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons from Groundwater at the U.S. Department of Energy Kansas City
Plant, DOE, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, ORNL/TM-11337.
DOE, 1991. Environmental Assessment for Retech Inc.'s Plasma Centrifugal Furnace
Evaluation, DOE, Washington, DC, DOE/EA 0491.
DOE, 1991. "Horizontal Hybrid Directional Boring," FY92 Technical Task Plan, TTP Reference
No.: AL-ZU23-J2.
DOE, 1991. "Modeling of Bioremediation Experiments at SRS ID," FY92 Technical Task
Description, TTP Reference No: AL-1211-02.
DOE, 1991. "SRS Integrated Demonstration: Directional Drilling," FY92 Technical Task Plan,
TTP Reference No.: SR-1211-01.
DOE, July 1992. "116-B-6A Crib ISV Demonstration Project," FY92 Technical Task Plan and
Technical Task Description, TTP Reference No. RL-8160-PT.
DOE, 1992. "Directional Sonic Drilling," FY93 Technical Task Plan, TTP Reference No.: AL-
2311-05.
DOE, 1992. "ISV Planning and Coordination," FY92 Technical Task Plan and Technical Task
Description, TTP Reference Number: RL-8568-PT.
DOE, 1992. In Situ Vitrification, Technology Transfer Bulletin, Prepared by Battelle Pacific
Northwest Laboratories for DOE, Richland, WA.
DOE, 1992. RCRA Research, Development and Demonstration Permit Application for a
Thermal Enhanced Vapor Extraction System, Sandia National Laboratories, Environmental
Restoration Technology Department, Albuquerque, NM.
DOE, 1992. ReOpt: Electronic Encyclopedia of Remedial Action Options, Prepared by Battelle
Pacific Northwest Laboratories for DOE, Richland, WA, PNL-7840/UC-602,603.
DOE, 1993. Directional Boring and Thrusting with Hybrid Underground Utility Industry
Equipment, ProTech Database, TTP References: AL2211-16 and AL2211-03.
DOE, 1993. Methanotrophic In Situ Bioremediation Using Methane/Air and Gaseous Nutrient
Injection Via Horizontal Wells, Technology Information Profile, Rev. 2, DOE ProTech Database,
TTP Reference No: SR-1211-06.
DOE, 1993. Technology Name: Arc Melter Vitrification, Technology Information Profile (Rev. 2)
for ProTech, DOE ProTech Database, TTP Reference No.: ID-132010.
DOE, 1993. Technology Name: Barriers and Post-Closure Monitoring Technology Information
Profile (Rev. 2), DOE Protech Database, TTP No. AL-1211-25.
DOE, 1993. Technology Name: Biological Destruction of Tank Wastes, Technology Information
Profile (Rev. 2), DOE Protech Database, TTP Reference Number: ID-121204.
DOE, 1993. Technology Name: Cesium Removal by Compact Processing Units for Radioactive
Waste Treatment, Technology Information Profile (Rev. 2), DOE ProTech Database, TTP Reference
Number: RL-321221.
DOE, 1993. Technology Name: Fixed Hearth Plasma Torch Process, Technology Information
Profile (Rev. 2) for ProTech, DOE ProTech Database, TTP Reference No.: PE-021202.
DOE, 1993. Technology Name: High-Energy Corona, Technology Information Profile (Rev. 2),
DOE ProTech Database, TTP Reference Number: RL-3211-01.
DOE, (Revised) 1993. Technology Name: Methanotrophic In Situ Bioremediation Using
Methane/Air and Gaseous Nutrient Injection Via Horizontal Wells, Technology Information
Profile (Rev. 2), DOE ProTech Database, TTP Reference Number: SR-1211-06.
DOE, 1993. Technology Name: Resorcinol-Formaldehyde Ion Exchange Resin for Elutable
Ion Exchange in the Compact Portable Units (CPUs) Proposed at Hanford, Technology
Information Profile (Rev. 2), DOE ProTech Database, TTP Reference No.: SR-1320-02.
DOE, 1993. Technology Name: Six Phase Soil Heating, Technology Information Profile (Rev. 2),
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-45
DOE ProTech Database, TTP Reference Number: RL 331004.

DOE, 1993. Technology Name: Slant-Angle Sonic Drilling, Technology Information Profile
(Rev. 2), DOE ProTech Database, TTP Reference No.: AL2310-05.
DOE, 1993. Technology Name: Thermal Enhanced Vapor Extraction System, Technology
Information Profile (Rev. 2), DOE ProTech Database, TTP Reference Number: AL221121.
DOE, 1993. Technology Name: VOC Offgas Membrane Separation, Technology Information
Profile (Rev. 3), DOE ProTech Database TTP Reference Number: RL-9740.
DOE, February 1994. Technology Catalogue, First Edition.
Downey, Douglas C. and Michael G. Elliott, August 1990. "Performance of Selected In Situ Soil
Decontamination Technologies: An Air Force Perspective", Environmental Progress, Vol. 9, No.
3, pp. 169-173.
Du Pont, R.R., W.J. Doucette, and R.E. Hinchee, 1991. "Assessment of In Situ Bioremediation
Potential and the Application of Bioventing at a Fuel-Contaminated Site," in In Situ
Bioreclamation. Applications and Investigations for Hydrocarbon and Contaminated Site
Remediation, R.E. Hinchee and R.F. Olfenbuttel, Editors, Butterworth-Heinemann, Stoneham, MA,
pp. 262-282.
Ebasco Services, Inc., undated. Remedial Planning Units Activities at Selected Uncontrolled
Hazardous Substance Disposal Sites, Region IV, Treatability Study for Whitehouse Waste Oil Pits
Site.
Eckenfelder, W. Wesley, Jr., 1966. Industrial Water Pollution Control, McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York, NY.
ECOVA Corporation, 1987. Final Report: Soil Treatment Pilot Study at BRIO/DOP Site,
Friendswood, TX.
Elliott, Captain Michael G., and Captain Edward G. Marchand, 1989. "U.S. Air Force Air
Stripping and Emissions Control Research," in Proceedings of the 14th Annual Army
Environmental R&D Symposium, Williamsburg, VA, USATHAMA Report No. CETHA-TE-TR-
90055.
Elliott, M.G. and E.G. Marchand, 1990. "USAF Air Stripping and Emissions Control Research,"
in Proceedings of the 14th Annual Army Environmental Symposium,USATHAMA Report CETHA-
TE-TR-90055.
Ensite, Inc., 1990. The SafeSoil Biotreatment Process: A Technical Review, Ensite, Inc., Atlanta,
GA.
Environmental Law Institute, 1984. Compendium of Cost of Remedial Technologies at
Hazardous Waste Sites, a Report to the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR),
EPA, Environmental Law Institute.
Environmental Solutions, Inc., undated. On-Site Treatment Hydrocarbon-Contaminated Soils,
under Contract by Western States Petroleum Association.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), undated. Bioremediation Resource Guide,
EPA/532-B-93/004.
EPA, undated. Bioremediation Using the Land Treatment Concept, EPA/600/R-93/164.
EPA, undated. Engineering Issue, In-Situ Bioremediation of Contaminated Unsaturated
Subsurface Soils, EPA/540/S-93/501.
EPA, undated. Environmental Research Brief; Complex Mixtures and Groundwater Quality,
EPA/600/S93/004.
EPA, undated. Ground Water Issue: Evaluation of Soil Venting Application, EPA/540/S-92/004.
EPA, undated. Ground Water Issue: Suggested Operating Procedures for Aquifer Pumping
Tests, EPA/540/S93/503.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-46
EPA, undated. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Superfund Site, Project Summary,
EPA/540/SR-93/516.
EPA, 1980. Control and Treatment Technology for the Metal Finishing Industry: Sulfide
Precipitation, EPA/625/8-80/003.
EPA, 1980. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual, EPA, Office of Water
Program Operations, EPA/430/9-78/009.
EPA, 1982. Superfund Record of Decision: Sylvester Site, NH (IRM), EPA, OERR, Washington,
DC, EPA/ROD/R01-82/005.
EPA, 1983. Technical Assistance Document for Sampling and Analysis of Toxic Organic
Compounds in Ambient Air, EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA/600/4-83/027.
EPA, 1984. Design Information on Rotating Biological Contactors, EPA/600/2-84/106.
EPA, 1984. Slurry Trench Construction for Migration Control, EPA, OERR, and Office of
Research and Development (ORD), Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-84/001.
EPA, 1985. Handbook — Remedial Action at Waste Disposal Sites, EPA, ORD, Hazardous
Waste Engineering Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, EPA/625/6-85/006.
EPA, September 1986. Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Toxic Organic
Compounds in Ambient Air (Supplement to EPA/600/4-84/041), EPA, Research Triangle Park,
NC, EPA/600/4-87/006.
EPA, 1986. Grouting Techniques in Bottom Sealing of Hazardous Waste Sites, USACE-WES,
Vicksburg, MS, and Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH,
EPA/600/2-86/020.
EPA, 1986. Mobile Treatment Technologies for Superfund Wastes, EPA, OERR, Washington,
DC, EPA/540/2-86/003(f).
EPA, 1987. A Compendium of Technologies Used in the Treatment of Hazardous Wastes,
EPAConstruction Engineering Laboratory (CERL), Cincinnati, OH, EPA/625/8-87/014.
EPA, 1987. Catalytic Dehydrohalogenation: A Chemical Destruction Method for Halogenated
Organics, Project Summary, EPA/600/52-86/113.
EPA, 1987. Destruction of Organic Contaminants by Catalytic Oxidation, EPA/600/D-87/224.
EPA, 1987. Handbook - Groundwater, EPA, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
(RSKERL), Ada, OK, EPA/625/6-87/016.
EPA, 1987. Incineration of Hazardous Waste, Fact Sheet, EPA, OSW, Washington, DC,
EPA/530-SW-88-018.
EPA, 1987. Incineration of Hazardous Waste, Fact Sheet, EPA, Office of Waste Programs
Enforcement, Washington, DC, S/AT/87-2.
EPA, 1987. Rotating Biological Contactors: U.S. Overview, EPA/600/D-87/023.
EPA, 1988. Assessment of International Technologies for Superfund Applications: Technology
Review and Trip Report Results, EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER),
Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-88/003.
EPA, 1988. Cleanup of Releases from Petroleum USTs: Selected Technologies, Washington,
DC, EPA/530/UST-88/001.
EPA, 1988. Evaluation of the B.E.S.T.? Solvent Extraction Sludge Treatment Technology
Twenty-Four Hour Test, EPA/600/2-88/051.
EPA, 1988. Experience in Incineration Applicable to Superfund Site Remediation, EPA, RREL
and Center for Environmental Research Information, EPA/625/9-88/008.
EPA, 1988. Groundwater Modeling: An Overview and Status Report, EPA, ORD, Washington,
DC, EPA/600/2-89/028.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-47
EPA, 1988. Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under
CERCLA, Interim Final, OSWER Directive 9355.3-01, Washington, DC, EPA/540/G-89/004.
EPA, 1988. Hazardous Waste Incineration: Questions and Answers, EPA, OSW, Washington,
DC, EPA/530-SW-88-018.
EPA, June 1988. Radio Frequency Enhanced Decontamination of Soils Contaminated with
Halogenated Hydrocarbons, Final Report, EPA, Hazardous Waste Engineering Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
EPA, June 1988. Second Supplement to Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Toxic
Organic Compounds in Ambient Air, EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA/600-4-89/018.
EPA, 1988. Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA Soils and Sludges,
EPA,OSWER and OERR, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-88/004
EPA, 1989. Air Superfund National Technical Guidance Study Series, Volume 1: Application of
Air Pathway Analysis for Superfund Activities, Interim Final, EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC,
EPA/450/1-89/001.
EPA, 1989. Air Superfund National Technical Guidance Study Series, Volume 2: Application of
Air Pathway Analysis for Superfund Activities, Appendix, Interim Final, EPA, Research Triangle
Park, NC, EPA/450/1-89/002.
EPA, 1989. Air Superfund National Technical Guidance Study Series, Volume 3: Estimation of
Air Emissions from Cleanup Activities at Superfund Sites, Interim Final, EPA, Research
Triangle Park, NC, EPA/450/1-89/003.
EPA, 1989. Air Superfund National Technical Guidance Study Series, Volume 4: Procedures
for Dispersion Modeling and Air Monitoring for Superfund Air Pathway Analysis, Interim
Final, EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA/450/1-89/004.
EPA, 1989. Applications Analysis Report — Shirco Infrared Incineration System, EPA, ORD,
Washington, DC, EPA/540/A5-89/010.
EPA, 1989. Biennial Reporting System, EPA, OSW, Washington, DC.
EPA, 1989. Bioremediation of Contaminated Surface Soils, EPA, RSKERL, Ada, OK,
EPA/600/9-89/073.
EPA, 1989. Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA, Interim Final, EPA,
OSWER, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-89/0058.
EPA, 1989. Innovative Technology — Glycolate Dehalogenation, EPA, OSWER, Washington,
DC, Directive 9200 5-254FS.
EPA, 1989. Innovative Technology: Soil Washing, OSWER Directive 9200.5-250FS.
_
EPA, 1989. Innovative Technology: BEST Solvent Extraction Process, EPA, OSWER,
Washington, DC, Directive 9200.5-253FS.
EPA, 1989. Innovative Technology — Glycolate Dehalogenation, EPA, OSWER, Washington,
DC, Directive 9200 5-254FS.
EPA, 1989. Innovative Technology: Soil Washing, EPA, OSWER, Washington, DC, Directive
9200.5-250FS.
EPA, 1989. SITE Program Demonstration Test International Waste Technologies In Situ
Stabilization/Solidification Hialeah, Florida, Technology Evaluation Report, EPA RREL,
Cincinnati, OH, EPA/540/5-89/004a.
EPA, 1989. SITE: Treatability Study Report - Results of Treating McColl Superfund Waste in
Ogden's Circulating Bed Combustor Research Facility, EPA, RREL, Cincinnati, OH,
EPA/600/X-89/342.
EPA, 1989. Soils Washing Technologies for: Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Leaking
Underground Storage Tanks, Site Remediation.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-48
EPA, 1989. Stabilization/Solidification of CERCLA and RCRA Wastes — Physical Tests,

Chemical Testing Procedures, Technology Screening and Field Activities, EPA, ORD,
EPA, 1989. Stabilization/Solidification of CERCLA and RCRA Wastes: Physical Tests,
Chemical Testing Procedures, Technology Screening, and Field Activities, EPA, CERL,
Cincinnati, OH, EPA/625/6-89/022.
EPA, December 1989. Superfund Treatability Study Protocol: Bench-Scale Level of Soils
Washing for Contaminated Soils (Interim Final), EPA, Washington, DC.
EPA, 1989. Technologies for Upgrading Existing or Designing New Drinking Water Treatment
Facilities, EPA, Office of Drinking Water (ODW), Cincinnati, OH, EPA/625/4-89/023.
EPA, 1989. Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA Soils and Sludges, EPA,
EPA, 1989. Terra Vac In Situ Vacuum Extraction System, Applications Analysis Report, EPA,
RREL, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/540/A5-89/003.
EPA, 1990. Applications Analysis Report: Toxic Treatments In Situ Steam/Hot-Air Stripping
Technology, Prepared by Science Applications International Corporation, San Diego, CA, for EPA,
RREL, Cincinnati, OH.
EPA, 1990. Basics of Pump-and-Treat Groundwater Remediation Technology, EPA, ORD,
EPA, 1990. Bioremediation in the Field, EPA/540/2-90-004.
EPA, 1990. CF Systems Organics Extraction Process New Bedford Harbor, MA, Applications
Analysis Report, Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE), EPA, Washington, DC,
EPA/540/A5-90/002. Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA, Order No. PB91-1133845.
EPA, 1990. Chemical Dehalogenation Treatment: APEG Treatment, Engineering Bulletin, EPA,
EPA, 1990. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual, EPA, Office of Water
Program Operations, EPA/430/9-78/009.
EPA, 1990. International Evaluation of In Situ Biorestoration of Contaminated Soil and
Groundwater, EPA, OERR and ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-90/012.
EPA, 1990. International Waste Technologies/Geo-Con In Situ Stabilization/Solidification,
Applications Analysis Report, EPA, ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/540/A5-89/004.
EPA, 1990. Mobile/Transportable Incineration Treatment, Engineering Bulletin, EPA OERR and
ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-90/014.
EPA, 1990. OAQPS Control Cost Manual (Chapter 3), EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/450/3-
90/006.
EPA, May 1990. Proceedings of the Second Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment
Technologies: Domestic and International, EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-90/010.
EPA, 1990. Slurry Biodegradation, Engineering Bulletin, EPA, OERR, EPA/540/2-90/016.
EPA, 1990. Soil Washing Treatment, Engineering Bulletin, EPA, OERR, Washington, DC,
EPA/540/2-90/017. Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA, Order No. PB91-228056.
EPA, 1990. Solvent Extraction Treatment, Engineering Bulletin, EPA, OERR and ORD,
Washington, DC, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/540/2-90/013.
EPA, 1990. State of Technology Review: Soil Vapor Extraction System Technology, Hazardous
Waste Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/600/2-89/024.
EPA, 1990. Summary of Treatment Technology Effectiveness for Contaminated Soil, EPA,
OERR, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-89/053.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-49
EPA, June 1990. Superfund Design and Construction Update, Publication 9200.5-2151.
EPA, 1990. Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program and the Inventory of
Treatability Study Vendors, EPA, OSWER, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-90/003b.
EPA, 1990. Technology Evaluation Report: SITE Program Demonstration of the Ultrox
International Ultraviolet Radiation/Oxidation, EPA, RREL, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/540/5-89/012.
EPA, 1990. Treating Chlorinated Wastes with the KPEG Process, Project Summary, EPA RREL,
Cincinnati, OH, EPA/600/S2-90/026.
EPA, 1990. Ultrox International Ultraviolet Radiation/Oxidation Technology, Applications
Analysis Report, EPA, ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/540/A5-89/012.
EPA, 1991. Access EPA, EPA/MSD-91-100.
EPA, 1991. Air Stripping of Aqueous Solutions, Engineering Bulletin, EPA, OERR, Washington,
DC, EPA/540/2-91/022.
EPA, 1991. AWD Technologies: Integrated AquaDetox®/SVE Technology, EPA, ORD,
EPA, 1991. AWD Technologies, Integrated Aquadetox/SVE Technology, Applications Analysis
Report, EPA, RREL, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/540/A5-91/002.
EPA, 1991. BCD: An EPA-Patented Process for Detoxifying Chlorinated Wastes, EPA, ORD.
EPA, 1991. Biological Treatment of Wood Preserving Site Groundwater, Applications Analysis
Report, EPA, ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/540/A5-91/001.
EPA, 1991. Chemical Oxidation Treatment, Engineering Bulletin, EPA, OERR and ORD,
EPA, 1991. Chemical Oxidation Treatment, Engineering Bulletin, EPA, OERR and ORD,
EPA, 1991. Control of Air Emissions from Materials Handling During Remediation,
Engineering Bulletin, EPA, OERR, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-91/022.
EPA, 1991. EPA's Mobile Volume Reduction Unit for Soil Washing, H. Masters and B. Rubin,
Editors, EPA/500/D-91/201. Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA, Order No. PB91-231209.
EPA, 1991. Granular Activated Carbon Treatment, Engineering Bulletin, EPA, OERR,
EPA, 1991. Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: Soil Vapor Extraction,
EPA, OERR, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-91/019A.
EPA, 1991. In Situ Soil Flushing, Engineering Bulletin, EPA/540/2-91/021.
EPA, 1991. In-Situ Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment, Engineering Bulletin, RREL, Cincinnati,
OH, EPA/540/2-91/006.
EPA, 1991. In Situ Steam Extraction Treatment, Engineering Bulletin, EPA, OERR and ORD,
EPA, 1991. Innovative Technology — In Situ Vitrification, EPA, OSWER, Washington, DC,
Directive 9200.5-251FS.
EPA, 1991. Innovative Treatment Technologies — Overview and Guide to Information Sources,
EPA, OSWER, Washington, DC, EPA/540/9-91/002.
EPA, 1991. Microbial Degradation of Alkylbenzenes under Sulfate Reducing and Methanogenic
Conditions, EPA, RSKERL, Ada, OK, EPA/600/S2-91/027.
EPA, 1991. Overview of Air Biofilters, EPA, RREL, Cincinnati, OH.
EPA, April 1991. Proceedings of the 17th Annual RREL Hazardous Waste Research
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-50
Symposium, EPA, RREL, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/600/9-91/002.

EPA, 1991. Project Summary — Soil Vapor Extraction Technology Reference Handbook, EPA,
RREL, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/540/S2-91/003.
EPA, 1991. Pyrolysis Treatment (Draft), Engineering Bulletin, OERR, Washington, DC, and ORD,
Cincinnati, OH.
EPA, 1991. Slurry Walls, Engineering Bulletin, EPA, OERR and ORD, Washington, DC,
EPA/540/2-92/0038.
EPA, 1991. Soil Vapor Extraction Technology Reference Handbook, EPA, RREL, Cincinnati,
OH, T.A. Pedersen and J.T. Curtis, Editors, EPA/540/2-91/003, pp. 88-91, 115.
EPA, 1991. Survey of Materials-Handling Technologies Used at Hazardous Waste Sites, EPA,
ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-91/010.
EPA, 1991. Thermal Desorption Treatment, Engineering Bulletin, EPA, OERR and ORD,
EPA, 1991. Toxic Treatments: In Situ Steam/Hot-Air Stripping Technology, EPA, ORD,
EPA, 1992. A Citizen's Guide to Bioventing, EPA, OSWER, Washington, DC, EPA/542/F-92/008.
EPA, 1992. A Citizen's Guide to Glycolate Dehalogenation, EPA, OSWER, Washington, DC,
EPA/542/F-92/005.
EPA, March 1992. A Citizen's Guide to Soil Washing, EPA, OSWER, Washington, DC,
EPA/542/F-92/003.
EPA, 1992. A Citizen's Guide to Thermal Desorption, EPA, OSWER, Washington, DC,
EPA/542/F-92/006.
EPA, 1992. Accessing Federal Data Bases for Contaminated Site Cleanup Technologies, Second
Edition, Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable, EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/540/B-92/002.
EPA, 1992. Air Pathways Analysis, Engineering Bulletin, EPA, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/540/S-
92/013.
EPA, 1992. Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center (ATTIC) (Electronic
Bulletinboard), EPA, RREL, Edison, NJ.
EPA, 1992. AOSTRA-SoilTech Anaerobic Thermal Processor: Wide Beach Development Site,
Demonstration Bulletin, EPA, ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/540/MR-92/008.
EPA, 1992. Babcock & Wilcox Cyclone Furnace Vitrification Technology, Applications Analysis
Report, EPA, ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/540/AR-92/017.
EPA, 1992. Bioremediation Case Studies: Abstracts, EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/600/9-92/044.
EPA, 1992. BioTrol Soil Washing System for Treatment of a Wood Preserving Site, Applications
Analysis Report, SITE, EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/540/A5-91/003.
EPA, 1992. Circulating Bed Combustor, Demonstration Bulletin, EPA, CERL, Cincinnati, OH,
EPA/540/MR-92/001.
EPA, 1992. Control of Air Emissions from Superfund Sites, EPA, ORD, EPA/625/R-92/012.
EPA, 1992. Cost of Biofiltration Compared to Alternative VOC Control Technologies, EPA,
RREL, Cincinnati, OH.
EPA, 1992. Demonstration of a Trial Excavation at the McColl Superfund Site, Applications
Analysis Report, EPA, ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/540/AR-921/015.
EPA, January 1992. Estimation of Air Impacts for Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Systems, EPA
450/1-92/001.
EPA, 1992. Horsehead Resource Development Company, Inc., Flame Reactor Technology,
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-51
Applications Analysis Report, EPA, ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/540/A5-91/005.

EPA, 1992. Innovative Treatment Technologies — Semi-Annual Status Report, Fourth Edition,
EPA, OSWER, Washington, DC, EPA/542/R-92/011.
EPA, 1992. Innovative Treatment Technologies: Semiannual Status Report, Third Edition, EPA,
EPA, May 1992. In Situ Treatment of Contaminated Groundwater: An Inventory of Research
and Field Demonstrations and a Role for EPA in Improving Groundwater Remediations, EPA,
Technology Innovation Office, Washington, DC.
3
EPA, 1992. Low Temperature Thermal Treatment (LT ®) System, Demonstration Bulletin,
Washington, DC, EPA/540/MR-92/019.
EPA, 1992. Pyrolysis Treatment, Engineering Bulletin, EPA, OERR, Washington, DC, EPA/540/S-
92/010.
EPA, 1992. Retech, Inc., Plasma Centrifugal Furnace, Applications Analysis Report, EPA, ORD,
EPA, 1992. Soil Vapor Extraction Technology, Reference Handbook, EPA, ORD, Washington,
DC, EPA/540/2-91/003.
EPA, 1992. SoilTech Anaerobic Thermal Processor: Outboard Marine Corporation Site,
Demonstration Bulletin, EPA, ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/540/MR-92/078.
EPA, 1992. Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site Remediation Technologies,
Second Edition, Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable, EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/542/B-
92/003.
EPA, 1992. Technologies and Options for UST Corrective Actions: Overview of Current
Practice, EPA, OSWER, Washington, DC, EPA/542/R-92/010.
EPA, 1992. Technology Assessment of Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging, Project
Summary, EPA, RREL, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/600/SR-92/173.
EPA, 1992. Technology Evaluation Report — Ogden Circulating Bed Combustor at the McColl
Superfund Site, EPA, OERR and ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/540/R-92/001.
EPA, 1992. The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology Profiles,
Fifth Edition, OSWER, EPA/940/R-92/077.
EPA, 1992. Thermal Desorption Applications for Treating Nonhazardous Petroleum
Contaminated Soil, (Draft), EPA, RREL, Edison, NJ.
EPA, 1993. Approaches for the Remediation of Federal Facility Sites Contaminated with
Explosive or Radioactive Wastes, EPA/625/R-93/013.
EPA, 1993. Demonstration Bulletin: Fungal Treatment Bulletin, EPA/540/MR-93/514.
EPA, 1993. In Situ Bioremediation: Biodegradation of Trichloroethylene and
Tetrachloroethylene by Injection of Air and Methane, Innovative Remedial Technology
Information Request Guide.
EPA, 1993. Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report, Fifth Edition,
EPA/542/R-93/003.
EPA, 1993. Perspective Remedies: Site Characterization and Technology Selection for
CERCLA Sites with Volatile Organic Compounds in Soil, EPA/540/F-93/048.
EPA, 1993. Solidification/Stabilization and Its Application to Waste Materials, Technical
Resource Document, EPA, ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/530/R-93/012.
EPA, 1993. Solidification/Stabilization of Organics and Inorganics, Engineering Bulletin, EPA,
ORD, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/540/S-92/015.
EPA, 1993. Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology Profiles, Sixth
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-52
Edition, EPA, OSWER and RREL, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/540/R-93/526.

EPA, 1993. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Vendor Information System for
Innovative Treatment Technologies (VISITT), Parts 1 and 2, EPA, OSWER, Washington, DC.
EPA, 1994. Thermal Desorption Treatment, Engineering Bulletin, EPA, OERR and ORD,
EPA/U.S. Air Force, July 1993. Remedial Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide,
Version 1.
EPA/U.S. Navy, November 1993. EPA/Navy CERCLA Remedial Action Technology Guide.
Fahy, L.J., L.A. Johnson, Jr., D.V. Sola, S.G. Horn, and J.L. Christofferson, December 1992.
"Enhanced Recovery of Oily NAPL at a Wood Treating Site Using the CROW Process," in
Proceedings of the HMC/Superfund '92, HMCRI, Greenbelt, MD.
Falta, R.W., et al., 1992. "Numerical Modeling of Steam Injection for the Removal of
Nonaqueous Phase Liquids from the Subsurface 2. Code Validation and Application,"Water
Resources Research, 28(2):451-465.
Fitzgerald, C. and J. Schuring, September 1992. "Integration of Pneumatic Fracturing To
Enhance In Situ Bioremediation," in Proceedings of the Symposium on Gas, Oil, and
Environmental Biotechnology, Institute of Gas Technology, Chicago, IL.
Flathman, P.E. and G.D. Githens, 1985. "In Situ Biological Treatment of Isopropanol, Acetone,
and Tetrahydrofuran in the Soil/Groundwater Environment," Groundwater Treatment
Technology, E.K. Nyer, Editor, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
Flathman, P.E., D.E. Jerger, and L.S. Bottomley, 1989. "Remediation of Contaminated
Groundwater Using Biological Techniques," Ground Water Monitoring Review, 9(1):105-119.
Fouhy, Ken, and Agnes Shanley, March 1991. "Mighty Microbes," Chemical Engineering, Vol.
98, No. 3, pp. 30-35.
Fountain, J.C., and D.S. Hodge, February 1992. Project Summary: Extraction of Organic
Pollutants Using Enhanced Surfactant Flushing - Initial Field Test (Part 1), Prepared for the
New York State Center for Hazardous Waste Management by the Department of Geology, State
University of New York, Buffalo, NY.
Frank, Uwe, December 1993. "Pneumatic Fracturing Increases VOC Extraction Rate,"Tech
Trends, p. 1, EPA, RREL, EPA/542/N-93/010.
Frankenberger, W.T. Jr., K.D. Emerson, and D.W. Turner, undated. "In Situ Bioremediation of an
Underground Diesel Fuel Spill: A Case History," Environmental Management, 13(3):325-332.
Freeman, H.M. (Editor), 1988. Incinerating Hazardous Wastes, Technomic Publishing Company,
Lancaster, PA.
Freeman, Harry M. (Editor in Chief), 1989. Standard Handbook of Hazardous Waste Treatment
and Disposal, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY.
Friday, Thomas L. and Rakesh Gupta, August 1991. "Selection of Treatment Process To Meet
OCPSF Limitations," Environmental Progress, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 218-224.
FRTR (Federal Remediation Technologies Round Table, Member Agencies of), August 1993.
Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site Remediation Technologies, Third Edition.
FRTR, September 1993. Accessing Federal Data Bases for Contaminated Site Clean-Up
Technologies, Third Edition.
FRTR, September 1993. Federal Publications on Alternative and Innovative Treatment
Technologies for Corrective Action and Site Remediation, Third Edition.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (Member Agencies of), October 1993. Federal
Publications on Alternative and Innovative Treatment Technologies for Corrective Action and
Site Remediation, Third Edition, EPA/542/B-93/007.
Fünfschilling, M.R. and R.C. Eschenbach, June 1992. A Plasma Centrifugal Furnace for
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-53
Treating Hazardous Waste, Presented at the Electrotech 92-International Congress on

Electrotechnologies, Canadian Committee on Electrotechnologies, Montreal, PQ.
Getty, D. and W.S. Butterfield, 1993. Contaminants and Remedial Options at Solvent-
Contaminated Sites, prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc. for EPA RREL.
Gillham, R.W. and S.F. O'Hannesin, October 1992. A Permeable Reaction Wall for In Situ
Degradation of Halogenated Organic Compounds, Paper presented at the 45th Canadian
Geotechnical Society Conference, Toronto, ON.
Gillham, R.W. and S.F. O'Hannesin, May 1992. "Metal-Catalyzed Abiotic Degradation of
Halogenated Organic Compounds," Modern Trends in Hydrogeology, presented at the 1992 IAH
Conference, Hamilton, ON.
Goldberg-Zoino and Assoc. Inc., 1987. Construction Quality Control and Post-Construction
Performance for the Gilson Road Hazardous Waste Site Cutoff Wall, EPA/600/2-87/065.
Govind, R., V. Utgikar, Y. Shan, S.I. Safferman, and D.F. Bishop, undated. Studies on Aerobic
Degradation of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in an Activated Carbon Packed Bed
Biofilter, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, and EPA, RREL, Cincinnati, OH. Unpublished
Report.
Gravitz, N., July 1985. "Derivation and Implementation of Air Criteria During Hazardous
Waste Cleanups," Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 35(7).
Greene, H.L., 1989. Vapor-Phase Catalytic Oxidation of Mixed Volatile Organic Compounds:
Final, USAF Engineering and Services Center, Engineering and Services Laboratory, Tyndall AFB,
FL, ESL-TR-89-12. Also available from NTIS, Springfield, VA, Order No. ADA243426.
Grubbs, R.B., June 1986. "Enhanced Biodegradation of Aliphatic and Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Through Bioaugmentation," Paper presented to the Fourth Annual Hazardous Materials
Management Conference/Exhibit, Atlantic City, NJ.
Grube, W. E., 1991. "Soil Barrier Alternatives," in Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual RREL
Hazardous Waste Research Symposium, EPA, RREL, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/600/9-91/002.
Hall, D.W., J.A. Sandrin, and R.E. McBride, 1989. An Overview of Solvent Extraction Treatment
Technologies, Presented at AIChE Convention, Philadelphia, PA.
Hall, D.W., J.A. Sandrin, and R.E. McBride, 1990. "An Overview of Solvent Extraction
Treatment Technologies," Environmental Progress, 9(2):98-105.
Halloran, A.R., R. Troast, and D.G. Gilroy, 1991. "Solvent Extraction of a PAH-Contaminated
Soil," in Proceedings of the 12th National Conference, Superfund '91,HMCRI, Greenbelt, MD.
Hansen, W., et al., 1992. Barriers and Post-Closure Monitoring, Briefing Chart, Los Alamos
National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, TTP No. AL-1212-25.
Hartz, A.A. and R.B. Beach, 1992. "Cleanup of Creosite-Contaminated Sludge Using a
Bioslurry Lagoon," in Proceedings of the HMC/Superfund '92, HMCRI, Greenbelt, MD.
Hassett, J.J., J.C. Means, W.L. Banwart, and S.G. Wood, 1980. Sorption Properties of Sediments
and Energy-Related Pollutants, EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/600/3-80-041.
Hassett, J.J., W.L. Banwart, R.A. Griffin, 1983. "Correlation of Compound Properties with
Sorption Characteristics of Nonpolar Compounds by Soils and Sediments; Concepts and
Limitations," Environment and Solid Wastes, C.W. Francis and S.I. Auerbach, Editors,
Butterworths, Boston, MA, pp. 161-178.
Hater, Gary R., C.D. Goldsmith, Randall von Wedel, James Philips, and William Hunt, undated. In-
Situ and Ex-Situ Bioremediation of Soils Contaminated by Petroleum Distillates, Made Available
by Biochemical Division of Sybron Chemicals Inc., Birmingham, NJ.
Hazen, T.C., B.B. Looney, M. Enzien, M.M. Franck, C.B. Fliermans, and C.A. Eddy, September
1993. In-Situ Bioremediation Via Horizontal Wells, Preprint Extended Abstract, Presented at the
I&EC Special Symposium, American Chemical Society, Atlanta, GA.
Heyse, E., S.C. James, and R. Wetzel, August 1986. "In Situ Aerobic Biodegradation of Aquifer
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-54
Contaminants at Kelly Air Force Base,"Environmental Progress, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 207-211.
Hildebrandt, W. and F. Jasiulewicz, September-October 1992. "Cleaning Up Military Bases,"
The Military Engineer, No. 55, p.7.
Hinchee, R.E., D.C. Downey, R.R. Du Pont, P. Aggarwal, and R.E. Miller, 1991. "Enhancing
Biodegradation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons through Soil Venting," Journal of Hazardous
Materials, 23(3).
Hinshaw, G.D., C.B. Fanska, D.E. Fiscus, and S.A. Sorensen, Midwest Research Institute, Undated.
Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) System Performance Capabilities and Optimization, Final
Report, USAEC, APG, MD, MRI Project No. 81812-S, Report No. AMXTH-TE-CR87111.
HMCRI (Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute), 1991. Hazardous Materials Control
Buyer's Guide and Source Book 1992, HMCRI, Greenbelt, MD.
HMCRI, 1992. Proceedings of the HMC/Superfund '92, HMCRI, Greenbelt, MD.
Hoffelner, W. and R.C. Eschenbach, February 1993. Plasma Treatment for Radioactive Waste,
Presented at the EPRI Conference, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
Hoffman, F., 1993. "Ground Water Remediation Using Smart Pump and Treat," Ground Water,
31:(1).
®
Holcombe, T.C., J. Cataldo, and J. Ahmad, 1990. "Use of the Carver-Greenfield Process for the
Cleanup of Petroleum-Contaminated Soils," in Proceedings of the New York-New Jersey
Environmental Expo '90, Meadowlands Convention Center, Secaucus, NJ, 16-18 October 1990.
Hubbert, M.K and D.G. Willis, 1957. "Mechanics of Hydraulic Fracturing," Petroleum
Transactions AIME, Vol. 210, pp. 153 through 168.
Hudson, J., et al., June 1991. Remote Sensing of Toxic Air Pollutants at a High Risk Point
Source Using Long Path FTIR, 91-57.1, Presented at the 1991 Air and Waste Management
Association Annual Meeting, Vancouver, BC.
Hunter, Marie, July 1989. "Biological Remediation of Contaminated Groundwater Systems,"
Pollution Engineering.
Hutchins, S.R., G.W. Sewell, D.A. Kovacs, and G.A. Smith, 1991. "Biodegradation of Aromatic
Hydrocarbons by Aquifer Microorganisms Under Denitrifying Conditions," Environmental
Science and Technology, 25:68-76.
Hutchins, S.R., W.C. Downs, J.T. Wilson, G.B. Smith, D.A. Kovacs, D.D. Fine, R.H. Douglass, and
D.J. Hendrix, 1991. "Effect of Nitrate Addition on Biorestoration of Fuel-Contaminated
Aquifer: Field Demonstration,"Ground Water, 29(4):571-580.
Hutzler, Neil J., Blane E. Murphy, and John S. Gierke, June 1989. State of Technology Review,
Soil Vapor Extraction Systems, EPA, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/600/2-89/024.
Hylton, T.D., 1992. "Evaluation of the TCE Catalytic Oxidation Unit at Wurtsmith Air Force
Base," Environmental Progress, 11(1):54-57.
Janshekar, H. and Fiechter A., 1988. "Cultivation of P. Chrysosporium and Production of Lignin
Peroxidases in Submerged Stirred Tank Reactors," Journal of Biotechnology, 8:97-112.
Jeng, C.Y., D.H. Chen, and C.L. Yaws, 1992. "Data Compilation for Soil Sorption Coefficient,"
Pollution Engineering, 15 June 1992.
Jhaveri, V. and A.J. Mazzacca, 1986. "Bioreclamation of Ground and Groundwater by In Situ
Biodegradation: Case History," Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites,
Washington, DC.
Johnson, N.P. and M.G. Cosmos, October 1989. "Thermal Treatment Technologies for
Hazardous Waste Remediation," Pollution Engineering.
Johnson, N.P., J.W. Noland, and P.J. Marks, 1987. Bench-Scale Investigation of Low
Temperature Thermal Stripping of Volatile Organic Compounds From Various Soil Types:
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-55
Johnson, P.C., D.D. Stanley, M.W. Kemblowski, D.L. Byers, and J.D. Colthart, Spring 1990. "A
Practical Approach to the Design, Operation, and Monitoring of In Situ Soil Venting Systems,"
GWMR, pp. 159-178.
Kampbell, D., 1991. "Bioventing/Biodegradation Remediates Liquid Hydrocarbons in
Unsaturated Zone," Tech Trends, EPA/540/M-91/004, No. 6.
Keeler, July 1991. "Bioremediation: Healing the Environment Naturally,"R&D Magazine.
Klecka, G.M., J.W. Davis, D.R. Gray, and S.S. Madsen, 1990. "Natural Bioremediation of
Organic Contaminants in Groundwater: Cliffs-Dow Superfund Site," Groundwater, 28:(4):534-
543.
Kram, M.L., 1990. Measurement of Floating Petroleum Product Thickness and Determination
of Hydrostatic Head in Monitoring Wells, NEESA Energy and Environmental News Information
Bulletin No. 1B-107.
Kram, M.L., October 1993. Free Product Recovery: Mobility Limitations and Improved
Approaches, NFESC Information Bulletin No. IB-123.
Kuhn, W.L., May 1992. Steady State Analysis of the Fate of Volatile Contaminants During In
Situ Vitrification, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA, prepared for DOE; PNL-8059, US-
602.
Kulwiec, R.A., 1985. Materials Handling Handbook, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
La Mori, P.N., May 1990. "In-Situ Hot Air/Steam Extraction of Volatile Organic Compounds,"
in Proceedings of the Second Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies:
Domestic and International, EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-90/010.
La Mori, P.N. and J. Guenther, September 1989. "In Situ Steam/Air Stripping," in Proceedings
of the Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies: Domestic and
International, EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/540/S-89/056.
Laboratory Paper presented at the 1990 Summer National Meeting of the American Institute of
Chemical Engineers (AIChE), San Diego, CA.
Lamar, Richard T. and Dietrich D.M., 1990. "In Situ Depletion of Pentachlorophenol from
Contaminated Soil by Phanerochaete Species,"Applied Environmental Microbiology, 56, 3093.
Lamar, Richard T. and Richard J. Scholze, 4-6 February 1992. White-Rot Fungi Biodegradation
of PCP-Treated Ammunition Boxes, Presented at the National Research and Development
Conference on the Control of Hazardous Materials, San Francisco, CA.
Lamar, Richard T. and Dietrich D.M., 1990. "In Situ Depletion of Pentachlorophenol from
Contaminated Soil by Phanerochaete Species,"Applied Environmental Microbiology, 56, 3093.
Lebron, C.A., June 1990. Ordnance Bioremediation - Initial Feasibility Report, NCEL.
Lebron, C.A., L.A. Karr, T. Fernando, and S.D. Aust, 1992. Biodegradation of 2,4,6-
Trinitrotoluene by White Rot Fungus, U.S. Parent Number 5,085,998.
Lighty, J., et al., 1987. The Cleanup of Contaminated Soil by Thermal Desorption, Presented at
Second International Conference on New Frontiers for Hazardous Waste Management, EPA Report
EPA/600/9-87/018.
Liikala, S.C, 1991. Applications of In Situ Vitrification to PCB-Contaminated Soils, Presented at
the Third International Conference for the Remediation of PCB Contamination, Houston, TX, 25-26
March 1991, Geosafe Corporation, Richland, WA.
Little, J.C., B.J. Marinaras, and R.E. Selleck, July 1991. "Crossflow vs. Counterflow Air
Stripping Costs," Environmental Engineering: Proceedings of the 1991 Specialty Conference,pp.
331-336, P.A. Krenkle, Editor, Environmental Engineering Division, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Reno, NV.
Lodge, J.P. (Editor), 1989. Methods of Air Sampling and Analysis, Third Edition, Lewis
Publishers, Inc., Chelsea MI.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-56
Lord, A.E., L.J. Sansone, R.M. Koerner, and J.E. Brugger, April 1991. "Vacuum-Assisted Steam
Stripping To Remove Pollutants from Contaminated Soil — A Laboratory Study," in
Proceedings of the 17th Annual RREL Hazardous Waste Research Symposium, EPA, Washington,
DC, EPA/600/9-91/002.
Luey, J.S., S. Koegler, W.L. Kuhn, P.S. Lowerey, and R.G. Winkelman, September 1992. "In Situ
Vitrification of Mixed-Waste Contaminated Soil Site: The 116-B-6A Crib at Hanford,"
CERCLA Treatability Test Report, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA, prepared for
DOE, Report PNL-8281, UC-602.
Major, D.W. and E.W. Hodgins, 1991. "Field and Laboratory Evidence of In Situ
Biotransformation of Tetrachloroethene to Ethene and Ethane at a Chemical Transfer Facility
in North Toronto," in On-Site Bioreclamation, Processes for Xenobiotic and Hydrocarbon
Treatment, pp. 147-171, R.E. Hinchee and R.F. Olfenbuttel, Editors, Butterworth-Heinemann,
Boston, MA.
Marchand, E., 1991. "Catalytic Oxidation Emissions Control for Remediation Efforts," in
Third Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies: Domestic and
International: Technical Papers, EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-91/015.
Marks, P.J. and J.W. Noland, 1986. Economic Evaluation of Low Temperature Thermal
Stripping of Volatile Organic Compounds from Soil, Technical Report, AMXTH-TE-CR-86085,
USATHAMA.
Martin, J.P., R.C. Sims, and J. Matthews, 1986. "Review and Evaluation of Current Design and
Management Practices for Land Treatment Units Receiving Petroleum Wastes,"Hazardous
Waste Hazardous Materials, 3(3):261-280.
Massey, M.J. and S. Darian, 1989. ENSR Process for the Extractive Decontamination of Soils
and Sludges, Presented at the PCB Forum, International Conference for the Remediation of PCB
Contamination, Houston, TX, 29-30 August 1989.
Maumee Research and Engineering, April 1986. Design Support for a Hot Gas Decontamination
System for Explosives-Contaminated Buildings.
Mayer, G., W. Bellamy, N. Ziemba, and L.A. Otis, 1990. "Conceptual Cost Evaluation of Volatile
Organic Compound Treatment by Advanced Ozone Oxidation," in Proceedings of the Second
Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies: Domestic and International,
15-17 May 1990, Philadelphia, PA, EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/2-90/010.
McCandless, R.M. and A. Bodocsi, 1987. Investigation of Slurry Cutoff Wall Design and
Construction Methods for Containing Hazardous Wastes, EPA/600/2-87/063.
McCoy and Associates, Inc., September/October 1992. "Innovative In Situ Cleanup Processes,"
The Hazardous Waste Consultant.
McCoy and Associates, Inc., 1989. The Hazardous Waste Consultant, Vol. 7, Issue 3.
McDevitt, N.P., J.W. Noland, and P.J. Marks, 1986. Bench-Scale Investigation of Air Stripping of
Volatile Organic Compounds from Soil: Technical Report, AMXTH-TE-CR-86092,
USATHAMA.
McGowan, T. and R. Ross, October 1991. "Hazardous Waste Incineration Is Going Mobile,"
Chemical Engineering, pp. 114-123.
McNeill, W., et al., October 1987. Pilot Plant Testing of Hot Gas Building Decontamination
Process - Final Report, USATHAMA Report AMXTH-TE-CR-87130.
Means, R.S. Company, Inc., 1988. Building Construction Cost Data 1989, R.S. Means
Publishing, Kingston, MA.
Meckes, et al., 1992. "Solvent Extraction Processes: A Survey of Systems in the SITE
Program," Journal of Air and Waste Management Association, Vol. 42, No. 8.
Miller, R.N., 1990. "A Field-Scale Investigation of Enhanced Petroleum Hydrocarbon
Biodegradation in the Vadose Zone at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida," in Proceedings of the
Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Groundwater: Prevention, Detection, and
Restoration Conference, NWAA/API, pp. 339-351.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-57
Miller, S., 1980. "Adsorption on Carbon: Solvent Effects on Adsorption," Environmental

Science & Technology, 14(9):1037-1049.
Miller, S.P., 1979. Geotechnical Containment Alternatives for Industrial Waste Basin F, Rocky
Mountain Arsenal, Denver, Colorado: A Quantitative Evaluation, USAE-WES Technical Report
GL-79-23.
Mitchell, M.M., D.B. McMindes, and R. Young, May 1991. Time Critical Response Action for a
JP-4 Free Product Plume— Kelly AFB," Presented at the Environmental Restoration Technology
Symposium, USAF, San Antonio, TX.
Molnaa, B.A. and R.B. Grubbs, undated. Bioremediation of Petroleum Contaminated Soils Using
a Microbial Consortia as Inoculum, Solmar Corporation, Orange, CA.
Montamagno, C.D., 1990. Feasibility of Biodegrading TNT-Contaminated Soils in a Slurry
Reactor - Final Technical Report, USATHAMA Report CETHA-TE-CR-90062.
Montgomery, A.H., C.J. Rogers, and A. Kornel, 1992. Thermal and Dechlorination Processes for
the Destruction of Chlorinated Pollutants in Liquid and Solid Matrices, Presented at the AIChE
1992 Summer Annual Meeting, 9-12 August, AIChE, New York, NY.
Morrison, R.T. and R.N. Boyd, 1973. Organic Chemistry, Third Edition, Allyn and Bacon, Inc.,
Boston, MA.
Murdoch, L.C., 1990. "A Field Test of Hydraulic Fracturing in Glacial Till,"in the Proceedings
of the Research Symposium, Ohio, EPA Report, EPA/600/9-90/006.
Murdoch, L.C., 1993. "Hydraulic Fracturing of Soil During Laboratory Experiments, Part I:
Methods and Observations; Part II: Propagation; Part III: Theoretical Analysis,"
Geotechnique, Vol. 43, No. 2, Institution of Civil Engineers, London, pp. 255 to 287.
Nash J., R.P. Traver, and D.C. Downey, 1986. Surfactant-Enhanced In Situ Soils Washing,
USAF Engineering and Services Laboratory, Florida. ESL-TR-97-18, Available from NTIS,
Springfield, VA, Order No. ADA188066.
NCEL, 1990. Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for the Removal and Treatment of PCB-
Contaminated Soils at Building 3000 Site PWC Guam.
NEESA, 1992. Immediate Response to Free Product Recovery, NEESA Document No. 20.2-
051.4.
NEESA and NCEL, July 1992. Chemical Dehalogenation Treatment: Base-Catalyzed
Decomposition Process, Technical Data Sheet.
NEESA and NCEL, August 1991. Chemical Dehalogenation Treatment: Base-Catalyzed
Decomposition Process, Technical Data Sheet.
Nelson, M.J., J.V. Kinsella, and T. Montoya, 1990. "In Situ Biodegradation of TCE
Contaminated Groundwater," Environmental Progress, 9(3):190-196.
Nelson, M.J.K., S.O. Montgomery, E.J. O'Neill, and P.H. Pritchard, 1986. "Aerobic Metabolism
of Trichloroethylene by a Bacterial Isolate," Applied and Environmental Microbiology,
52(2):383-384.
Nelson, Michael J.K., John A. Cioffi, and Harlan S. Borow, November 1990. "In-Situ
Bioremediation of TCE and Other Solvents," in Proceedings of the 11th National Superfund
Conference (Superfund '90), HMCRI, pp. 800-806.
NETAC (National Environmental Technology Applications Corporation), 1990. A Technology
Overview of Existing and Emerging Environmental Solutions for Wood Treating Chemicals,
Prepared for Beazer East, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA.
3
Nielson, R. and M. Cosmos, 1988. Low Temperature Thermal Treatment (LT ) of Volatile
Organic Compounds from Soil: A Technology Demonstrated, Presented at the AIChE Meeting,
Denver, CO.
NIOSH, OSHA, USCG (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Occupational Safety
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-58
and Health Administration, U.S. Coast Guard), and EPA, 1985. Occupational Safety and Health
Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Site Activities, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Washington, DC, Publication 85-115.
Noland, J.W., et al., 1984. Task 2: Incineration Test of Explosives Contaminated Soils at
Savanna Army Depot Activity, Final Report, Savanna Illinois, USATHAMA Report DRXTH-TE-
CR 84277.
Norris, et al., 1994. Handbook of Bioremediation, EPA-RSKERL, Lewis Publishers, CRC Press,
2000 Corporate Boulevard, Boca Raton, FL 33431.
Nunno, T.J., J.A. Hyman, and T. Pheiffer, December 1988. "Development of Site Remediation
Technologies in European Countries," in Workshop on the Extractive Treatment of Excavated
Soil, EPA, Edison, NJ.
Nyer, E.K., 1985. Groundwater Treatment Technology, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
Opatken, E.J., H.K. Howard, and J.J. Bond, 1987. Biological Treatment of Hazardous Aqueous
Wastes, EPA/600/D-87/184.
Opatken, E.J., H.K. Howard, and J.J. Bond, 1989. "Biological Treatment of Leachate from a
Superfund Site," Environmental Progress, Vol. 8, No. 1.
Pedersen, T.A. and J.T. Curtis, 1991. Soil Vapor Extraction Technology, EPA/540/2-91/003.
Piotrowski, Michael R., January 1991. "Bioremediation, Experts Explore Various Biological
Approaches to Cleanup," Hazmat World Special Report, pp. 47-49.
Pisciotta, T., D. Pry, J. Schuring, P. Chan, and J. Chang, October 1991. "Enhancement of Volatile
Organic Extraction in Soil at an Industrial Site," in Proceedings of the FOCUS Conference on
Eastern Regional Ground Water Issues, National Water Well Association, Portland, ME.
Plaines, A.L., R.J. Piniewski, and G.D. Yarbrough, undated. Integrated Vacuum
Extraction/Pneumatic Soil Fracturing System for Remediation of Low Permeability Soils, Terra
Vac, Tampa, FL.
Pope, D.F. and J.E. Matthews, 1993. Bioremediation Using the Land Treatment Concept, EPA
Report EPA/600/R-93/164.
Portier, R.J., et al., 1990. "Bioremediation of Pesticide-Contaminated Groundwater,"
Remediation, 1:(1):41-60.
Raghavan, R., D.H. Dietz, and E. Coles, 1988. Cleaning Excavated Soil Using Extraction
Agents: A State-of-the-Art Review, EPA Releases Control Branch, Edison, NJ, EPA Report EPA
600/2-89/034.
Ramin, A., 1990. Thermal Treatment of Refinery Sludges and Contaminated Soils, Presented at
the American Petroleum Institute, Orlando, FL.
RCRIS (Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System), July 1992. RCRIS National
Oversight Database, EPA, OSW, Washington, DC.
Reilly, T.R., S. Sundaresan, and J.H. Highland, 1986. "Cleanup of PCB-Contaminated Soils and
Sludges by a Solvent Extraction Process: A Case Study," Studier Environmental Science, 29:125-
139.
Ritcey, R. and F. Schwartz, May 1990. Anaerobic Pyrolysis of Waste Solids and Sludges: The
AOSTRA Taciuk Process System, Presented at the Environmental Hazards Conference and
Exposition, Environmental Hazards Management Institute, Seattle, WA.
Roberts, P.V., L. Semprini, G.D. Hopkins, D. Grbi_-Gali_, P.L. McCarty, and M. Reinhard, 1989.
In Situ Aquifer Restoration of Chlorinated Aliphatics by Methanotropic Bacterial, Center for
Environmental Research Information, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/600/2-89/033.
Robinson, Kevin G., Kimyoung Kim, William S. Farmer, and John T. Novak, August 1990.
"Bioremediation Removes Gasoline Residues,"Pollution Engineering, Vol. 22, No. 8, pp. 76-81.
Rogers, C., A. Kornel, and L. Peterson, 1987. "Mobile KPEG Destruction Unit for PCBs,
Dioxins, and Furans in Contaminated Waste: Land Disposal Remedial Action, Incineration,
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-59
and Treatment of Hazardous Waste," in Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Research

Symposium, p. 361, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/600/9-87/015.
Rowe, R., December 1987. "Solvent Extraction," Evaluation of Treatment Technologies for
Listed Petroleum Refinery Wastes, Final Report of the American Petroleum Institute, American
Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC.
Roy, Kimberly A., October 1991. "Vacuum Extraction Provides In Situ Cleanup of Organics-
Contaminated Soil," Hazmat World, pp. 38-41.
Royer, M.D., undated. Contaminants and Remedial Options at Metals-Contaminated Sites.
Prepared by Battelle Columbus Division for EPA, RREL and ORD, Cincinnati, OH.
Schlienger, E., W.R. Warf, and S.R. Johnson, March 1993. The Mobile PCF2, Presented at Waste
Management '93, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
Schneider, D. and B.D. Beckstrom, 1990. "Cleanup of Contaminated Soils by Pyrolysis in an
Indirectly Heated Rotary Kiln," Environmental Progress, 9:(3):165-168.
Scholz, R. and J. Milanowski, 1983. Mobile System for Extracting Spilled Hazardous Materials
from Excavated Soils, EPA, EPA-600/S2-83-100.
Schuring, J. and P. Chan, 1992. Vadose Zone Contaminant Removal by Pneumatic Fracturing,
Summary of Project (1 July 1988-30 June 1992), New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ.
Schuring, J., J. Valdis, and P. Chan, September 1991. "Pneumatic Fracturing of a Clay
Formation To Enhance Removal of VOCs," in Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Madison
Waste Conference, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
Schuring, J., J. Jurka, and P. Chan, Winter 1991/92. "Pneumatic Fracturing To Remove VOCs,"
Remediation Journal, 2:(1).
Scovazzo, P.E., D. Good, and D.S. Jackson, 1992. "Soil Attenuation: In Situ Remediation of
Inorganics," in Proceedings of the HMC/Superfund 1992, HMCRI, Greenbelt, MD.
Semprini, L., G.D. Hopkins, D.B. Janssen, M. Lang, P.V. Roberts, and P.L. McCarty, 1991. In-Situ
Biotransformation of Carbon Tetrachloride Under Anoxic Conditions, EPA/2-90/060.
Semprini, Lewis, Paul V. Roberts, Gary D. Hopkins, and Perry L. McCarty, September/October
1990. "A Field Evaluation of In-Situ Biodegradation of Chlorinated Ethenes: Part 2, Results
of Biostimulation and Biotransformation Experiments," Ground Water, Vol. 28, No. 5, pp.
715-727.
Shirco Infrared Systems, 10-13 February 1987. Final Report: On-Site Incineration Testing at
Brio Site, Friendswood, Texas, Report No. 846-87-1 (Portable Test Unit).
Shukla, H.M. and R.E. Hicks, 1984. Process Design Manual for Stripping of Organics, Water
General Corporation for EPA, EPA/600/12-84/139, NTIS PB 84 232628.
Sims, J.L., R.C. Sims, and J.E. Matthews, 1989. Bioremediation of Contaminated Surface Soils,
EPA, RSKERL, Ada, OK, EPA Report, EPA-600/9-89/073.
Sims, Judith L., Ronald C. Sims, and John E. Matthews, 1990. "Approach to Bioremediation of
Contaminated Soil," Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 117-149.
Sims, R.C., J.L. Sims, D.L. Sorensen, W.J. Doucette, and L.L. Hastings, 1987. Waste-Soil
Treatability Studies for Four Complex Industrial Wastes: Methodologies and Results, Volumes 1
and 2, EPA, RSKERL, Ada, OK, EPA/600/S6-86/003.
Singh, S.P., 1989. Air Stripping of Volatile Organic Compounds from Groundwater: An
Evaluation of a Centrifugal Vapor-Liquid Contractor, USAF Environmental and Service Center
Report ESL-TR-86-46.
Sittler, S.P. and G.L. Swinford, 1993. "Thermal-Enhanced Soil Vapor Extraction Accelerated
Cleanup of Diesel-Affected Soils," The National Environmental Journal, 3:(1):40-43.
Smarkel, K.L., 3 November 1988. Soil Washing of Low Volatility Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Staff
Technology Demonstration Report, California Department of Health Services. Abstract Available on
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-60
ATTIC.
Spalding, B.P., G.K. Jacobs, N.W. Dunbar, M.T. Naney, J.S. Tixier, and T.D. Powell, November
1992. Tracer-Level Radioactive Pilot-Scale Test of In Situ Vitrification for the Stabilization of
Contaminated Soil Sites at ORNL, Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Publication No. 3962,
prepared for DOE, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, Report NG ORNL/TM-
12201.
Spellicy, R.L., November/December 1991. "Spectroscopic Remote Sensing: Addressing
Requirements of the Clean Air Act. 24,"Spectroscopy, 6(9).
Spooner, P.A., et al., 1984. Slurry Trench Construction for Pollution Migration Control,
EPA/540/2-84/001.
Sresty, G., H. Dev, and J. Houthoofd, February 1992. In Situ Decontamination by Radio
Frequency Heating, Presented at the International Symposium on In Situ Treatment of
Contaminated Soil and Water, AWMA, Pittsburgh, PA.
Staley, L.J., R. Valentinetti, and J. McPherson, 1990. "SITE Demonstration of the CF Systems
Organic Extraction Process," Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, 40(6):926-
931. Also available from NTIS, Springfield, VA, Order No. PB91-145110.
Stenzel, M.H. and W.J. Merz, 1989. "Use of Carbon Adsorption Processes in Groundwater
Treatment," Environmental Progress, 8(4):257-264.
Stinson, M.K., 1989. "EPA SITE Demonstration of the Terra Vac In Situ Vacuum Extraction
Process in Groveland, Massachusetts," Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association,
Vol. 39, No. 8, p. 1054.
Stinson, M.K., 1990. "EPA SITE Demonstration of the International Waste Technologies/Geo-
Con In Situ Stabilization/Solidification Process," Journal of the Air and Waste Management
Association, Vol. 40, No. 11, p. 1569.
Stinson, M.K., H. Skovronek, and T. Chresand, 1991. "EPA SITE Demonstration of Biotrol
Aqueous Treatment System," Journal of Air and Waste Management Association, Vol. 41, No. 2,
p. 228.
Stinson, M.K., H. Skovronek, and T. Chresand, 1992. "EPA SITE Demonstration of Biotrol
Aqueous Treatment System," Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, Vol. 41, No.
2, p. 228.
Stinson, M.K., 1992. Contaminants and Remedial Options at Wood Preserving Sites, Prepared
by Foster Wheeler Enviresponse for EPA, RREL and ORD, Cincinnati, OH.
Stumbar, J., et al., 1990. EPA Mobile Incineration Modifications, Testing, and Operations:
February 1986 to June 1989, EPA/600/2-90/042.
Stumbar, J., et al., 1990. "Effect of Feed Characteristics on the Performance of Environmental
Protection Agency's Mobile Incineration System," in Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual
Research Symposium, Remedial Action, Treatment and Disposal of Hazardous Wastes, EPA/600/9-
90/006.
Stumm, W. and J.J. Morgan, 1981. Aquatic Chemistry, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Sturges, S.G., Jr., P. McBeth, Jr., R.C. Pratt, 1992. "Performance of Soil Flushing and
Groundwater Extraction at the United Chrome Superfund Site," Journal of Hazardous
Materials, El Savior Science Pub., B.V., Amsterdam, Vol. 29, pp. 59-78.
Swanstrom, C. and C. Palmer, 1990. X*TRAX Transportable Thermal Separator for Organic
Contaminated Soils, Presented at the Second Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment
Technologies: Domestic and International, Philadelphia, PA.
Taylor, D.S. and A.E. Peterson, 1991. "Land Application for Treatment of PCBs in Municipal
Sewage Sludge," Bioremediation, 3:464-466.
Taylor, M.L., et al. (PEI Associates), 1989. Comprehensive Report on the KPEG Process for
Treating Chlorinated Wastes, EPA Contract No. 68-03-3413, EPA RREL, Cincinnati, OH.
Teer, R.G., R.E. Brown, and H.E. Sarvis, June 1993. Status of RCRA Permitting of Open
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-61
Burning and Open Detonation of Explosive Wastes, Presented at Air and Waste Management
Association Conference, 86th Annual Meeting and Exposition, Denver, CO.
Torpy, M.F., H.F. Stroo, and G. Brubaker, 1989. "Biological Treatment of Hazardous Waste,"
Pollution Engineering.
Trost, P.B. and R.S. Rickard, 1987. On-Site Soil Washing— A Low Cost Alternative, Paper
Presented at ADPA, 29 April 1987, Los Angeles, CA, MTA Remedial Resources, Inc., Golden, CO.
Abstract available on ATTIC.
Udell, K. S. and L.D. Stewart, Jr., June 1989. Field Study of In Situ Steam Injection and Vacuum
Extraction for Recovery of Volatile Organic Compounds, University of California at Berkeley,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Berkeley, CA, UCB-SEEHRL Report No. 89-2.
Unger, M.T., 1993. "Catalytic Oxidation for VOCs," The National Environmental Journal,
3:(2):46-48.
USAF (U.S. Air Force), 1986. Surfactant-Enhanced In Situ Soils Washing, J. Nash, R.P. Traver,
and D.C. Downey, Editors, USAF Engineering and Services Laboratory, Florida, ESL-TR-97-18.
USAF, 1987. Air Stripping of Contaminated Water Sources Air Emissions and Controls, USAF,
Tyndall AFB, FL. Available from NTIS: PB88-106166.
USAF, 1987. An Evaluation of Rotary Air Stripping for Removal of Volatile Organics from
Groundwater, Final Report, C. Dietrich, D. Treichler, and J. Armstrong Editors, Traverse Group,
Inc., USAF Engineering and Services Laboratory, Tyndall AFB, FL, ESL-TR-86-46. Available
from NTIS, Springfield, VA, Order No. ADA178831.
USAF, 1989. Enhanced Bioreclamation of Jet Fuels— A Full-Scale Test at Eglin AFB, FL,
Final Report, ESL-TR-88-78, R.E. Hinchee, D.C. Downey, J.K. Slaughter, D.A. Selby, M.S.
Westray, and G.M. Long, Editors, USAF Engineering and Services Center, Tyndall AFB, FL.
USAF, 1989. In Situ Decontamination by Radio Frequency Heating— Field Test, Final Report,
USAF/SD Contract No. F04701-86-C-0002, USAF, USAF/SD, Los Angeles, CA.
USAF, 1991. Control of Air Stripping Emissions Using Catalytic Oxidation, Tyndall AFB, FL.
USAF, July 1992. Remedial Technology Design, Performance and Cost Study, USAF, Air Force
Center for Environmental Excellence, Brooks AFB, TX.
USAF/EPA, July 1993. Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide,
Version 1.
U.S. Army, 1987. Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) System Performance Capabilities and
Optimization, Final Report, Hinshaw, G.D., C.B. Fanska, D.E. Fiscus, and S.A. Sorensen, Editors,
Midwest Research Institute, U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency (USATHAMA),
APG, MD, MRI Project No. 8182-S, Report No. AMXTH-TE-CR87111. Available from NTIS,
Springfield, VA, Order No. ADA179828.
U.S. Army, August 1990. The Low Temperature Thermal Stripping Process, USATHAMA, APG,
MD, USATHAMA Cir. 200-1-5.
U.S. Army, 1991. Technical and Economic Evaluation of Air Stripping for Volatile Organic
Compound (VOC) Removal from Contaminated Groundwater at Selected Army Sites, Tennessee
Valley Authority and USATHAMA, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD, CETHA-TE-CR-91023.
U.S. Army, 1992. Installation Restoration and Hazardous Waste Control Technologies: 1992
Edition, USATHAMA, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD, Report No. CETHA-TS-CR-92053.
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), 1986. Civil Works Construction Guide Specification
for Soil-Bentonite Slurry Trench Cutoffs, National Institute of Building Sciences, Construction
Criteria Base, CW-02214.
USAEC (U.S. Army Environmental Center), November 1992. Installation Restoration and
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-62
Hazardous Waste Control Technologies, Third Edition.

University of Cincinnati (UC), 1991. Work Plan for Hydraulic Fracturing at the Xerox Oak
Brook Site in Oak Brook, Illinois.
USAMC (U.S. Army Materiel Command), 1985. Explosives Safety Manual, AMC-R, 385-100.
USATHAMA (U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency, now USAEC), 1987. Draft
Report, Bench-Scale Glassification Test on Basin F Materials, Prepared by Battelle Pacific
Northwest Laboratories for USATHAMA, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD.
USATHAMA, July 1990. Pilot Test of Hot Gas Decontamination of Explosives-Contaminated
Equipment at Hawthorne Army Ammunition Plant (HWAAP), Hawthorne, NV, Final Technical
Report, USATHAMA Report CETHA-TE-CR-90036.
USCG (U.S. Coast Guard), September 1991. "Innovative Groundwater and Soil Remediation at
the USCG Air Station, Traverse City, Michigan," in Proceedings of the Third Forum on
Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies: Domestic and International, EPA,
USN (U.S. Navy), August 1991. Tech Data Sheet — Chemical Dehalogenation Treatment:
Base-Catalyzed Decomposition Process (BCDP), U.S. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port
Hueneme, CA.
USN/EPA, November 1993. EPA/Navy CERCLA Remedial Action Technology Guide.
Unkefer, P.J., J.L. Hanners, C.J. Unkefer, and J.F. Kramer, April 1990. "Microbial Culturing of
Explosives Degradation," in Proceedings of the 14th Annual Army Environmental Symposium,
Vance, David B., September/October 1991. "Onsite Bioremediation of Oil and Grease
Contaminated Soils," The National Environmental Journal, Vol. 1, Issue 1, pp. 26-30.
Venkatadri, R., S. Tsai, N. Vukanic, and L.B. Hein, 1992. "Use of Biofilm Membrane Reactor for
the Production of Lignin Peroxidase and Treatment of Pentachlorophenol by Phanerochaete
Chrysosporium," Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials, Vol. 9, pp. 231-243.
von Wedel, Randall J., Gary R. Hater, Rodney Farrell, and C. Douglas Goldsmith, Jr., February
1990. "Excavated Soil Bioremediation for Hydrocarbon Contaminations Using Recirculating
Leachbed and Vacuum Heap Technologies," in Proceedings of the Air and Waste Management
Association and EPA Hazardous Waste Treatment of Contaminated Soil Symposium, Cincinnati,
OH.
von Wedel, Randall J., November 1990. Augmented Bioremediation of Excavated Soil
Contaminated with Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Paper presented at the Superfund '90 Conference,
Biotreatment Session, Washington, DC.
Vorum, M., June 1991. SoilTech Anaerobic Thermal Process (ATP): Rigorous and Cost
Effective Remediation of Organic Contaminated Solid and Sludge Wastes, Presented at the Air
and Waste Management Association, (AWMA) Conference in Kansas City, KS. Available from
AWMA, Pittsburgh, PA.
_
Weimer, L.D., September 1989. The BEST Solvent Extraction Process Applications with
Hazardous Sludges, Soils, and Sediments, Paper presented at the Third International Conference,
New Frontiers for Hazardous Waste Management, Pittsburgh, PA.
West, C.C. and J.H. Harwell, 1992. Application of Surfactants to Remediation of Subsurface
Contamination, EPA, RSKERL and the University of Oklahoma, Institute for Applied Surfactant
Research and School of Chemical Engineering and Materials Research, EPA, Ada, OK.
3
Weston Services, Inc., 1988. Project Summary - LT Processing of Soils Contaminated with
Chlorinated Solvents and JP-4.
WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.), 1993. Windrow Composting Demonstration for Explosives-
Contaminated Soils at the Umatilla Depot Activity, Hermiston, Oregon, Final Report, Prepared
for USAEC, Contract No. DACA31-91-D-0079, Report No. CETHA-TS-CR-93043.
WESTON, IT Research Institute, November 1992. Final Rocky Mountain Arsenal In Situ Radio
Frequency Heating/Vapor Extraction Pilot Test Report, Vol. I, U.S. Army Report 5300-01-12-
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-63
AAFP.
Wetzel, R.S., C.M. Durst, D.H. Davidson, and D.J. Sarno, July 1987. In-Situ Biological
Treatment Test at Kelly Air Force Base, Volume II: Field Test Results and Cost Model,
AD-A187 486, Air Force Engineering & Services Center, Tyndall AFB, FL.
Wiedemeir, T.H., D.C. Downery, J.T. Wilson, D.H. Hampbell, R.N. Miller, and J.E. Hansen, l994.
Technical Protocol for Implementing the Intrinsic Remediation (Natural Attenuation) with
Long-Term Monitoring Option for Dissolved-Phase Fuel Contamination in Ground Water,
Draft, Prepared for AFCEE, San Antonio, TX, 14 March 1994.
Wiles, C.C., 1991. Treatment of Hazardous Waste with Solidification/Stabilization, EPA Report
EPA/600/D-91/061.
Williams, R.T. and P.J. Marks, November 1991. Optimization of Composting for Explosives-
Contaminated Soils, USATHAMA Report CETHA-TS-CR-91053.
Williams, R.T., P.S. Ziegenfuss, and P.J. Marks, March 1989. Field Demonstration - Composting
of Propellants-Contaminated Sediments at the Badger Army Ammunition Plant (BAAP),
USATHAMA Report CETHA-TE-CR-89061.
Williams, R.T., P.S. Ziegenfuss, and P.J. Marks, September 1988. Field Demonstration -
Composting of Explosives-Contaminated Sediments at the Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant,
USATHAMA Report AMXTH-IR-TE-88242.
Wilson, J., 1991. "Nitrate Enhanced Bioremediation Restores Fuel Contaminated
Groundwater to Drinking Water Standard," Tech Trends, EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/540/M-
91/002.
Wilson, J.H., R.M. Counce, A.J. Lucero, H.L. Jennings, and S.P. Singh, 1991. Air Stripping and
Emissions Control Technologies: Field Testing of Counter Current Packings, Rotary Air
Stripping, Catalytic Oxidation, and Adsorption Materials, ESL TR 90-51.
Wilson, J.T., J.F. McNabb, J. Cochran, T.H. Wang, M.B. Tomson, and P.B. Bedient, 1985.
"Influence of Microbial Adaption on the Fate of Organic Pollutants in Groundwater,"
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 4:721-726.
Wilson, J.T., L.E. Leach, J. Michalowski, S. Vandegrift, and R. Callaway, 1989. In Situ
Bioremediation of Spills from Underground Storage Tanks: New Approaches for Site
Characterization Project Design, and Evaluation of Performance, EPA/600/2-89/042.
Wolf, A. and L.C. Murdoch, 1992. The Effect of Sand-Filled Hydraulic Fractures on Subsurface
Air Flow: Summary of SVE Field Tests Conducted at the Center Hill Research Facility, UC
Center Hill Facility, Unpublished Report.
Woodland, L.R., et al., August 1987. Pilot Testing of Caustic Spray/Hot Gas Building
Decontamination Process, USATHAMA Report AMHTH-TE-CR-87112.
Woodward, Richard E., September 1990. "Soil Remediation Techniques at Uncontrolled
Hazardous Waste Sites," Journal of Air and Waste Management Association, Vol. 40, No. 9, pp.
1234-1236.
Zappi, M.E. and B.C. Fleming, 1991. Treatability of Contaminated Groundwater from the Lang
Superfund Site, Draft WES Report, USAE-WES, Vicksburg, MS.
Zappi, M.E., B.C. Fleming, and M.J. Cullinane, 1992. "Treatment of Contaminated
Groundwater Using Chemical Oxidation," from Proceedings of the 1992 ASCE Water Forum
Conference, Baltimore, MD.
Zappi, M.E., B.C. Fleming, and C.L. Teetar, 1992. DRAFT - Treatability of Contaminated
Groundwater from the Lang Superfund Site, USAE-WES.
Zappi, M.E., C.L. Teeter, B.C. Fleming, and N.R. Francingues, 1991. Treatability of Ninth Avenue
Superfund Site Groundwater, WES Report EL-91-8.
Zappi, M.E., D. Gunnison, C.L. Teeter, and N.R. Francigues, 1991. Development of a Laboratory
Method for Evaluation of Bioslurry Treatment Systems, Presented at the 1991 Superfund
Conference, Washington, DC.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-64
Zappi, M.E., D.D. Adrian, and R.R. Shafer, 1989. "Compatibility of Soil-Bentonite Slurry Wall
Backfill Mixtures with Contaminated Groundwater," in Proceedings of the 1989 Superfund
Conference, Washington, DC.
Zappi, M.E., et al., April 1990. "Treatability Study of Four Contaminated Waters at Rocky
Mountain Arsenal, Commerce City, Colorado, Using Oxidation with Ultra-Violet Radiation
Catalyzation", from Proceedings of the 14th Annual Army Environmental Symposium,
Zappi, M.E., R.A. Shafer, and D.D. Adrian, 1990. Compatibility of Ninth Avenue Superfund Site
Ground Water with Two Soil-Bentonite Slurry Wall Backfill Mixtures, WES Report No. EL-90-9.
Zitrides, Thomas G., May 1990. "Bioremediation Comes of Age," Pollution Engineering,
Vol. XXII, No. 5, pp. 57-62.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5 10/31/00
5-65
Appendix A
VISITT
EPA publishes the Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment
Technologies (VISITT). This data base has been developed by the Technology
Innovation Office (TIO) in the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) as part of a broad effort to promote the use of innovative treatment
technologies for the cleanup of soil and groundwater contaminated by hazardous
and petroleum waste. VISITT is designed to capture current information on the
availability, performance, and cost of innovative treatment to remediate
contaminated waste sites.
VISITT provides environmental professionals with rapid access to up-to-date
information on innovative technologies and the companies that offer them.
VISITT's menu-driven design allows the user to search the extensive technology
information for particular applications and technology types. The user, for
example, can enter a waste description to identify innovative technologies in the
system that treat such wastes. The user can also locate specific sites where vendors
may have conducted treatability studies or cleanups.
Once the data base identifies the technologies and vendors meeting the user's
requirements, the user can then review such information as available equipment,
performance data, and experience. Printing options include printing all of the
technology information for a given vendor, or only those data fields of particular
interest.
The basic information on each technology includes the vendor name, address, and
phone number; technology description; highlights; limitations; and the contaminant
and waste/media treated. Many of the vendors with technologies at the pilot and full
scale also provide a summary of performance data, project names and contacts,
available hardware and capacity, unit price information, treatability study
capabilities, and literature references. Performance data, project information, and
literature citations can be used to substantiate a vendor's claims.
The third revision of the data base, VISITT 3.0, is offered on four 5¼-inch or three
3½-inch floppy disks, accompanied by a user manual. The data base requires a
personal computer with at least 640K of RAM (random access memory), an
operating system of DOS Version 3.3 or higher (that is, IBM or IBM-compatible),
and 10 megabytes of hard disk storage. VISITT is not offered for Apple Macintosh
format. The data base is compiled and requires no other software to operate.
VISITT is compatible with most printers and local area networks (LANs). EPA,
through PRC Environmental Management, Inc., offers technical assistance to
correct any hardware or software problems associated with installing or using
VISITT.
3.0 is also available as a downloadable file (VISITT 3.2ip) on EPA's Cleanup
Information Bulletin Board System (CLU-IN). For a list of files on the CLU-IN,
type <F7 for file directories, and choose the directory for data bases. To access
CLU-IN by modem, call (301) 589-8366, or contact the CLU-IN Help Desk at
(301) 589-8368.
VISITT 3.0 is available at no charge. To order the VISITT diskettes and user
manual, and to become a registered user, fill out and mail the order/registration form
provided to EPA/NCEPI, P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242-0419; FAX,
(513) 891-6685; verification, (513) 891-6561. Please provide all of the required
information; EPA cannot process incomplete forms. Registration ensures that you
will receive information on subsequent corrections and updates to the system.
The VISITT hotline and software support are provided by PRC Environmental
Management, Inc., for the Technology Innovation Office under Contract No.
68-CO-0047. Linda Fiedler is the EPA project manager.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apa 10/31/00
A-1
ORDERING VISITT 3.0
To order the VISITT 3.0 diskettes and user manual, and to become a registered user, please complete
this order and registration form and mail or fax it to the location indicated below. VISITT 3.0 is
available at NO CHARGE. VISITT 3.0 also is available on EPA's CLU-IN Bulletin Board.
IMPORTANT: All registered users of version 1.0 and 2.0 should complete this form
and mail or fax it to the location indicated below.
Special Note to EPA Staff: TIO is working directly with EPA Headquarters and
Regional offices, EPA laboratories, and EPA libraries to install VISITT on LANs and at
workstations. For more information, contact the OSWER Technology Innovation
Office.
EPA Vendor Information Systemfor Innovative Treatment Technologies

(VISITT) Version 3.0 Order and Registration Form
Mail to: U.S. EPA/NCEPI FAX to: U.S. EPA/NCEPI

P.O. Box 42419 or (513) 891-6685
Cincinnati, OH 45242-0419 [Verification: (513) 891-6561]
Please type or print legibly. Allow 3 to 4 weeks for delivery.
Name:
Company/Agency
Street
City State
Country Telephone Number
Date Ordered
Register me as a VISITT user.
Send me VISITT 3.0 diskettes and a user manual.
Diskette size (check one) 3½ 5¼
Send me a VISITT 3.0 user manual only.
I am an innovative treatment technology vendor and would like to receive an

application to be included in VISITT 4.0. Place me on the VISITT 4.0
Application Mailing List.
I am an innovative measurement or monitoring technology vendor and

would like to receive an application for the new measurement and monitoring
vendor data base. Place me on the Measurement/Monitoring Data base
A-2
VISITT
Application Mailing List.
A-3
A-4
VISITT
LIST OF VENDORS BY TECHNOLOGY
Inclusion in EPA's Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment Technologies (VISITT) does not mean that EPA
approves, recommends, licenses, certifies, or authorizes the use of any of the technologies. Nor does EPA certify the
accuracy of the data. This listing means only that the vendor has provided information on a technology that EPA considers to
be eligible for inclusion in this data base.
AIR EMISSIONS/OFF GAS TREATMENT
OFF-GAS TREATMENT
BECO Engineering, Co. (412) 828-6080

Bohn Biofilter Corporation (602) 621-7225
Compact Membrane Systems, Inc. (302) 984-1762
Ecology Technologies International, Inc. (602) 985-5524
EG&G Corporation (914) 246-3401
Envirogen, Inc. (609) 936-9300
General Atomics (619) 455-2499
IT Corporation (615) 690-3211
KSE, Inc. (413) 549-5506
M.L. Energia (609) 799-7970
Membrane Technology and Research, Inc. (415) 328-2228
Nucon International, Inc. (614) 846-5710
Process Technologies, Inc. (208) 385-0900
Purus, Inc. (408) 955-1000
TAUW Hilieu (31-570) 099-911
(the Netherlands)
Zapit Technology, Inc. (408) 986-1700
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
BIOREMEDIATION — IN SITU GROUNDWATER
ABB Environmental Services, Inc. (617) 245-6606

Chester Environmental (412) 269-5700
Cognis Inc. (707) 576-6204
Electrokinetics, Inc. (504) 388-3992
ENSR Consulting and Engineering (805) 388-3775
EODT Services, Inc. (615) 690-6061
ESE Biosciences, Inc. (919) 872-9686
GAIA Resources, Inc. (312) 329-0368
Geo-Microbial Technologies, Inc. (918) 535-2281
Groundwater Technology, Inc. (510) 671-2387
Kamron Environmental Services, Inc. (404) 636-0928
Microbial Environmental Services (515) 276-3434
OHM Corporation (419) 424-4932
Remediation Technologies, Inc. (919) 967-3723
Waste Stream Technology, Inc. (716) 876-5290
Yellowstone Environmental Science, Inc. (406) 586-3905
BIOREMEDIATION — IN SITU LAGOON

Praxair, Inc. (formerly Union Carbide) (914) 789-3034
LIST OF VENDORS BY TECHNOLOGY (CONTINUED)

BIOREMEDIATION — IN SITU SOIL

Billings and Associates, Inc. (505) 345-1116
Biogee International, Inc. (713) 578-3111
A-5
Detox Industries (713) 240-0892

ESE Biosciences, Inc. (919) 872-9686
Grace Dearborn, Inc. (905) 279-2222
Hayward Baker Environmental, Inc. (410) 551-1995
In-Situ Fixation, Inc. (602) 821-0409
Kemron Environmental Services (404) 636-0928
Microbial Environmental Services, Inc. (515) 276-3434
Quarternary Investigations, Inc. (Q) (909) 423-0740
SBP Technologies, Inc. (904) 934-9282
Waste Stream Technologies, Inc. (716) 876-5290
BIOREMEDIATION — SLURRY PHASE
Biosolutions, Inc. (201) 616-1158

Bogart Environmental Services, Inc. (615) 754-2847
Cognis, Inc. (707) 575-7155
Elmco Process Equipment Co. (801) 526-2082
EODT Services, Inc. (615) 690-6061
Praxair, Inc. (formerly Union Carbide) (914) 789-3034
Waste Stream Technologies, Inc. (716) 876-5290
Yellowstone Environmental Science, Inc. (406) 586-3905
BIOREMEDIATION — SOLID PHASE

Alvarez Brothers (512) 576-0404
Arctech, Inc. (703) 222-0280
Bioremediation Services, Inc. (503) 624-9464
Clean-up Technology, Inc. (310) 828-4844
Cognis, Inc. (707) 575-7155
Earthfax Engineering, Inc. (801) 561-1555
Environmental Tech. of North America, Inc. (919) 299-9998
ETUS, Inc. (407) 321-7910
Grace Dearborn, Inc. (905) 279-2222
Groundwater Technology, Inc. (510) 671-2387
Microbial Environmental Services, Inc. (515) 276-3434
Mycotech Corporation (406) 782-2386
Waste Stream Technology, Inc. (716) 876-5290
BIOREMEDIATION — NOT OTHERWISE SPECIFIED
B&S Research, Inc. (218) 984-3757

Bioremediation Services, Inc. (503) 624-9464
Bioremediation Technology Services, Inc. (209) 984-4963
Chempete, Inc. (708) 365-2007
Clyde Engineering Services (504) 362-7929
Detox Industries, Inc. (713) 240-0892
Eco-Tec, Inc./Ecology Technology (206) 392-0304
A-6
VISITT
EPG/Haecon, Inc. (708) 381-0020

Sybron Chemicals (609) 893-1100
ETUS Inc. (407) 321-7910
BIOVENTING

Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories (509) 372-2273
Engineering Sciences, Inc. (303) 831-8100
Environeering (419) 885-3155
H2O Science, Inc. (714) 379-1157
Hayward Baker Environmental, Inc. (410) 551-1995
Mittlehauser Corporation (714) 472-2444
Quanternary Investigations, Inc. (QI) (909) 423-0740
Terra Vac, Inc. (714) 252-8900
Vapex Environmental Technologies, Inc. (617) 821-5560
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT
ACID EXTRACTION
Center for Hazardous Materials Research (412) 826-5320

Cognis, Inc. (707) 575-7155
Earth Treatment Technologies (610) 497-6729
Lockheed Corporation (702) 897-3626
ADSORPTION/ABSORPTION — IN SITU
Dynaphore, Inc. (804) 672-3464

Environmental Fuel Systems, Inc. (210) 796-7767
AIR SPARGING — IN SITU GROUNDWATER
Billings & Associates, Inc. (505) 345-1116

Hayward Baker Environmental Inc. (410) 551-1995
Horizontal Technologies (813) 995-8777
IEG Technologies Corporation (704) 357-6090
Quarternary Investigations, Inc. (Q) (909) 423-0740
Terra Vac Inc. (714) 252-8900
CHEMICAL TREATMENT — IN SITU GROUNDWATER
Environmental Technologies, Inc. (519) 824-0432

Geochem Division of Terra Vac (303) 988-8902
Intera, Inc. (512) 346-2000
CHEMICAL TREATMENT — OTHER
Cleantech of Arkansas, Inc. (501) 834-7600

Davy Research and Development Ltd. (44-692) 607-108 (UK)
Environmental Scientific, Inc. (ESI) (919) 941-0847
EPS Environmental, Inc. (201) 368-7902
Integrated Chemistries, Inc. (612) 636-2380
Viking Industries (615) 890-1018
DECHLORINATION
A.L. Sandpiper Corporation (614) 486-0405

SDTX Technologies, Inc. (518) 734-4483
A-7
DELIVERY/EXTRACTION SYSTEMS
Drilex Systems, Inc. (713) 937-8888

Eastman Charrington Environmental (713) 722-7777
Horizontal Technologies, Inc. (813) 995-8777
Millgard Environmental Corporation (313) 261-9760
Novaterra, Inc. (310) 843-3190
DUAL-PHASE EXTRACTION
Billings & Associates (505) 345-1116

Dames & Moore (215) 657-7134
First Environment, Inc. (201) 616-9700
Terra Vac, Inc. (714) 252-8900
MAGNETIC SEPARATION
S.G. Frantz Co., Inc. (609) 882-7100
MATERIALS HANDLING/PHYSICAL SEPARATION
Canonie Environmental Services Corporation (303) 790-1747

Ecova Corporation (303) 279-9712
Microfluidics Corporation (617) 969-5452
Onsite * Offsite Inc./Battelle PNL (818) 303-2229
Portec, Inc. (605) 665-8770
Recra Environmental, Inc. (716) 691-2600
OXIDATION/REDUCTION
Arctech, Inc. (703) 222-0280

Eli Eco Logic International, Inc. (519) 856-9591
EM&C Engineering Associates (714) 957-6429
ETUS, Inc. (407) 321-7910
G.E.M., Inc. (501) 337-9410
High Voltage Environmental Applications (305) 593-5330
R & M Technologies, Inc. (800) 699-7227
Synthetica Technologies, Inc. (510) 525-3000
PNEUMATIC FRACTURING
Accutech Remedial Systems, Inc. (908) 739-6444

Terra Vac, Inc. (714) 252-8900

SOIL FLUSHING — IN SITU
Horizontal Technologies, Inc. (813) 995-8777

Scientific Ecology Group, Inc. (412) 247-6255
SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION
AWD Technologies, Inc. (301) 948-0040

Geo-Con, Inc. (412) 856-7700
Mittlehauser Corporation (708) 368-0201
Terra Vac, Inc. (714) 252-8900
SOIL WASHING
Alternative Remedial Technologies, Inc. (813) 264-3506
A-8
VISITT
B&W Nuclear Environmental Services, Inc. (804) 948-4610

Benchem (412) 361-1426
Bergmann USA (615) 452-5500
Bio-Recovery Systems, Inc. (505) 523-0405
Biotrol, Inc. (612) 942-8032
Canonie Environmental Services Corp. (303) 790-1747
Divesco, Inc. (601) 932-1934
Earth Decontaminators, Inc. (714) 262-2290
Geochem Division of Terra Vac (303) 988-8902
Lockheed Corporation (702) 897-3626
Nukem Development (713) 520-9494
On-Site Technologies, Inc. (408) 371-4810
Scientific Ecology Group, Inc. (412) 247-6255
Turboscope Velco Environmental Service (713) 799-5289
Warren Spring Laboratory (44-438) 74-122 (UK)
West Pac Environmental, Inc. (206) 762-1190
Westinghouse Remediation Services, Inc. (404) 299-4736
SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION
Chemfix Technologies, Inc. (504) 461-0466

Funderburk & Associates (903) 545-2004
International Waste Technologies (316) 269-2660
Geo-Con, Inc. (412) 856-7700
Silicate Technology Corporation (602) 948-7100
Soliditech, Inc. (713) 497-8558
WASTETECH, Inc. (615) 483-6515
S.M.W. Seiko, Inc. (510) 783-4105
Separation and Recovery Systems , Inc. (714) 261-8860
Wheelabrator Technologies, Inc. (603) 929-3000
SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Art International, Inc. (201) 627-7601

CF Systems Corporation (617) 937-0800
Dehydro-Tech Corporation (201) 887-2182
EM&C EngineeringAssociates (714) 957-6429
Envirogen, Inc. (609) 936-9300
Integrated Chemistries, Inc. (612) 636-2380
Nukem Development (713) 520-9494
Resources Conservation Co. (301) 596-6066
SRE, Inc. (201) 661-5192
Terra-Kleen Corporation (405) 728-0001
THERMAL TREATMENT
ELECTRICAL SEPARATION
Electro-Petroleum, Inc. (610) 687-9070

Water and Slurry Purification Process (303) 650-5674
ELECTRO-THERMAL GASIFICATION — IN SITU
Bio-Electrics, Inc. (816) 474-4895
INCINERATION
Alberta Special Waste Treatment Centre (403) 333-4197

Allied-Signal Tar Products (205) 787-8605
Aptus (801) 531-4273
BDT, Inc. (716) 759-2868
Chemical Waste Management, Inc. (800) 541-5511
Environmental Systems Co. (ENSCO) (800) 349-7407
L.W.D, Inc. (502) 395-8813
A-9
Laidlaw Environmental Services (800) 922-3309

Rhone-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. (713) 688-9311
Rollins Environmental Services, Inc. (609) 342-7051
Ross Incineration Services, Inc. (216) 748-2171
Thermall KEM, Inc. (803) 324-5310
Trade Waste Incineration (618) 271-2804
WESTON, Inc. (610) 701-7423
Waste Technologies Industries (216) 385-7337
PYROLYSIS

Product Control Ltd- E. Someus (44-481) 726-426 (UK)
SLAGGING OFF-GAS TREATED
Horsehead Resource Development Co., Inc. (412) 773-2289
THERMAL DESORPTION
Advanced Soil Technologies (612) 486-7000

Ariel Industries, Inc. (615) 894-1957
Canonie Environmental Services Corp. (219) 926-8651
Carlo EnvironmentalTechnologies, Inc. (810) 468-9580
Carson Environmental (310) 478-0792
Clean Berkshires, Inc. (617) 695-9770
Clean-Up Technology, Inc. (310) 828-4844
Contamination Technologies, Inc. (617) 575-8920
Conteck Environmental Services, Inc. (612) 441-4965
Covenant Environmental Technologies, Inc. (901) 759-5874
DBA, Inc. (510) 447-4711
Ecova Corporation (303) 279-9712
Enviro-Klean Soils, Inc. (206) 888-9388
Hazen Research, Inc. (303) 279-4501
Hrubetz Environmental Services, Inc. (214) 363-7833
Kalkaska Construction Service, Inc. (616) 258-9134
OBG Technical Services, Inc. (315) 437-6400
Pet-Con Soil Remediation, Inc. (608) 588-7365
Pittsburgh Mineral & Environmental Technologies (412) 843-5000
Recycling Science International, Inc. (312) 357-1448
THERMAL DESORPTION (Continued)

Roy F. Weston, Inc (610) 701-7423
Rust Remedial Services, Inc. (803) 646-2413
Seaview Thermal Systems (215) 654-9800
Separation and Recovery Systems, Inc. (714) 261-8860
Soil Purification, Inc./ASTEC (706) 861-0069
Soiltech ATP Systems, Inc. (303) 790-1747
Southwest Soil Remediation, Inc. (602) 577-7680
Texarome, Inc. (210) 232-6079
Thermotech Systems Corporation (407) 290-6000
Western Research Institute (307) 721-2443
Westinghouse Remediation Services, Inc. (404) 299-4721
THERMALLY ENHANCED RECOVERY IN SITU

Hrubetz EnvironmentalServices, Inc. (214) 363-7833
A-10
VISITT
KAI Technologies, Inc. (617) 932-3328

Novaterra, Inc. (310) 843-3190
Praxis Environmental Technologies, Inc. (415) 282-9568
R.E. Wright Associates, Inc. (REWAI) (717) 944-5501
Sive Services (510) 820-5449
Thermatrix, Inc. (408) 944-0220
VITRIFICATION
B&W Nuclear Environmental Services, Inc. (804) 948-4610

EET Corporation (615) 671-7800
Electro-Pyrolysis, Inc. (610) 687-9070
Geosafe Corporation (509) 375-0710
Retech, Inc. (707) 462-6522
Stir-Melter, Inc. (419) 536-8828
Texaco Syngas, Inc. (914) 253-4003
Vortec Corporation (610) 489-2255
A-11
Appendix B
DOE SITE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES
BY WASTE CONTAMINANT MATRIX
AND
COMPLETED SITE DEMONSTRATION
PROGRAM PROJECTS
AS OF OCTOBER 1993
The DOE Technology Catalogue contains extensive information on technologies used for
characterization, monitoring, and remediation. These technologies range from innovative/emerging
to proven technologies.
Table B-1 was extracted from the DOE Technology Catalogue (Document No. DOE/EM-0138P) to
provide a complete listing of the technology information presented in that document. Specific
detailed information about each listed technology can be obtained by referring to the DOE
Technology Catalogue or by calling DOE at 1-800-736-3282 (7EM-DATA)
Table B-2 was reproduced from Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program, Technology
Profiles, Sixth Edition (Document No. EPA/540/R-93/526). This table provides information on
completed SITE Demonstration Programs organized in alphabetical order by developer name.
Technology contact names and telephone numbers are also provided in the table.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apb 10/31/00
B-1
TABLE B-1
DOE SITE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES BY WASTE CONTAMINANT
Technology Media Waste Contaminant Description Treatmen
Metals
Arc Melter Vitrification Soil Toxic metals Vitrification
Barriers and Post-Closure Monitoring Arid soils Soluble metals Containment/Treatment
Biological Destruction of Tank Waste Supernatants, Toxic metals Biosorption

aqueous streams
In Situ Vitrification of Contaminated Soil Heavy metals Destruction/Immobilization

Soils
Polyethylene Encapsulation of Aqueous salt and Toxic metals, Cr, Pb, Cd Encapsulation
Radionuclides and Heavy Metals concentrate, saltcake,
sludge, ash, ion
exchange resin in
tanks
Mixed Waste
Arc Melter Vitrification Soil Mixed waste (TRU) Vitrification
Dynamic Underground Stripping of Soil, groundwater Mixed waste Enhanced Removal

VOCs
Fixed Hearth DCPlasma Torch Soil, stored waste Mixed waste Waste Form Enhancement
Process
In Situ Vitrification of Contaminated Soil Mixed waste Immobilization

Soils
Organics
Arc Melter Vitrification Soil Organics Vitrification
Barriers and Post-Closure Monitoring Arid soils VOCs, organics Containment/Treatment
Biological Destruction of Tank Waste Supernatants, Organics Biosorption

aqueous streams
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apb
B-2
TABLE B-1
DOE SITE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES BY WASTE CONTAMINANT (Continued)
Organics (Continued)
Dynamic Underground Stripping of Soil, groundwater VOCs Enhanced Removal

VOCs
Fixed-Hearth DC Plasma Torch Soil, stored waste Organics Waste Form Enhancement
Process
High-Energy Corona Gas, aqueous and VOCs, halogenated solvents, Destruction

non-aqueous liquids TCE, PCE, carbon
tetrachloride, chloroform,
diesel fuel, gasoline
In Situ Air Stripping Permeable soils, VOCs, light hydrocarbons, Enhanced Removal
groundwater chlorinated solvents, TCE,
PCE
In Situ Vitrification of Contaminated Soil VOCs Destruction/Immobilization

Soils
Methane-Enhanced Bioremediation for Soil, groundwater Halogenated aliphatic Cometabolic Destruction

the Destruction of TCE organics, TCA, TCE, PCE
Six-Phase Soil Heating Soil VOCs, SVOCs Extraction
Steam Reforming Off-gas of soil Halogenated solvents, Destruction

carbon tetrachloride,
chloroform adsorbed on
granular-activated carbon
beds
Thermal Enhanced Vapor Extraction Arid soils VOCs, SVOCs, VOC-oil Extraction
System mixtures, chemicals with
vapor pressures <0.0002
atm @ 20 ?C
VOC Off-Gas Membrane Separation Gas stream VOCs, halogenated solvents, Membrane Separation
carbon tetrachloride,
chloroform
B-3
TABLE B-1
Radioactive
Biological Destruction of Tank Waste Supernatant aqueous Various radionuclides, TRU Separation Volume Reduction
streams
Compact Processing Units for Liquids, sludges, High-level, low-level, TRU Biosorption
Radioactive Waste Treatment slurries
Cryogenic Retrieval of Buried Waste Soil TRU Freezing/Retrieval

Containment
In Situ Vitrification of Contaminated Soil Various radionuclides, TRU Immobilization

Soils
Polyethylene Encapsulation of Aqueous salt and Various radionuclides, TRU Encapsulation

Radionuclides and Heavy Metals concentrate, saltcake,
sludge, ash, ion
exchange resin in
tanks
Resorcinol-Formaldehyde Ion Cs supernatant salt Cs Ion Exchange

Exchange Resin for Cesium Removal streams
Other or Waste Independent
Biological Destruction of Tank Wastes Supernatants, Nitrate Separation Volume Reduction

aqueous streams
Cryogenic Retrieval of Buried Waste Soil, buried waste Hazardous waste Freezing/Containment
Decision Support System To Select Arid and humid soils N/A Multi-objective Decision
Migration Barrier Cover Systems Making Software System
Dynamic Underground Stripping of Soil, groundwater NAPLs, DNAPLs Enhanced Removal

VOCs
Fixed-Hearth DC Plasma Torch Soil, stored waste Wide variety of solid and Waste Form Enhancement
Process liquid wastes, inorganics
B-4
TABLE B-1
Other or Waste Independent (continued)
High-Pressure Waterjet Dislodging Supernatant, sludge, N/A Confined Sluicing

and Conveyance End Effector Using saltcake in tanks
Confined Sluicing
Hydraulic Impact End Effector Hard waste forms in N/A Fracturing

tanks
Remote Excavation System Soil Buried waste Retrieval
B-5
COMPLETED SITE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM PROJECTS AS
Technology/ Technology EPA Project Manager

Developer Demonstration Location Contact Waste Media
Inorgani
Accutech Remedial Systems, Inc. Pneumatic Fracturing Extraction Harry Moscatello Uwe Frank Soil, Rock Not Applicable
a
Keyport, NJ (005) and Catalytic Oxidation/New 908-739-6444 908-321-6626
Demonstration Date: Jersey Environmental Cleanup
July - August 1992 Responsibility Act (ECRA) site in
Hillsborough, NJ
American Combustion, Inc. PYRETRON® Thermal Gregory Gitman Laurel Staley Soil, Sludge, Solid Not Applicable
Norcross, GA (001) Destruction/EPA's Incineration 404-564-4180 513-569-7863 Waste
Demonstration Date: Research Facility in Jefferson,
November 1987- January 1988 AK, using soil from Stringfellow
Acid Pit Superfund Site in Glen
Avon, CA
AWD Technologies, Inc. Integrated Vapor Extraction and David Bluestein Gordon Evans Groundwater, Soil Not Applicable
San Francisco, CA (004) Steam Vacuum Stripping/San 415-227-0822 513-569-7684
Demonstration Date: Fernando Valley Groundwater
September 1990 Basin Superfund Site in Burbank,
CA
b
Babcock & Wilcox Co. Cyclone Furnace/Developer's Lawrence King Laurel Staley Solids, Soil, Nonspecific, Lo
Alliance, OH (006) Facility in Alliance, OH 216-829-7576 513-569-7863 Sludges Radionuclides
Demonstration Date:
November 1991
Bergmann USA Soil and Sediment Washing/ Richard Traver Jack Hubbard Sediment, Soil Heavy Metals
Gallatin, TN (007) Saginaw Bay Confined Disposal 615-230-2217 513-569-7507
Demonstration Date: Facility in Saginaw, MI
May 1992
BioGenesis Enterprises, n
I c. BioGenesis_ Soil Washing Charles Wilde Annette Gatchett Soil Not Applicable
Des Plaines, IL (005) Process/Refinery site in 703-250-3442 513-569-7697
Demonstration Date: Minnesota Mohsen Amiran
November 1992 708-827-0024
Bio-Rem, Inc. Augmented In Situ Subsurface David O. Mann Kim Lisa Kreiton Soil, Water Not Applicable
Butler, IN (007) Bioremediation Process/ 219-868-5823 513-569-7328
Demonstration Date: Williams AFB in Phoenix, AZ 800-428-4626
May 1992 - June 1993
B-6
TABLE B-2
COMPLETED SITE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM PROJECTS AS OF OCTOBER 1993 (Continued)
Technology/ Technology EPA Project

Developer Demonstration Location Contact Manager Waste Media
Inorgan
BioTrol, Inc. Biological Aqueous Treatment Dennis Chilcote Mary Stinson Liquid Waste, Nitrates
Eden Prairie, MN (003) System/MacGillis and Gibbs 612-942-8032 908-321-6683 Groundwater
Demonstration Date: Superfund Site in New Brighton,
July - September 1989 MN
BioTrol, Inc. Soil Washing System/MacGillis Dennis Chilcote Mary Stinson Soil Metals
Eden Prairie, MN (003) and Gibbs Superfund Site in New 612-942-8032 908-321-6683
Demonstration Date: Brighton, MN
September - October 1989
Brice Environmental Soil Washing Plant/Alaskan Craig Jones Hugh Masters Soil Radioactive an
Services Corporation Battery Enterprises Superfund 907-452-2512 908-321-6678 Metals
Fairbanks, AK (007) Site in Fairbanks, AK
Demonstration Date:
September 1992
Canonie Environmental Services Low Temperature Thermal Chetan Trivedi Paul dePercin Soil, Sediment, Not Applicable
Corporation Aeration (LTTA)/Pesticide Site in 219-926-7169 513-569-7797 Sludge
Porter, IN (007) Phoenix, AZ
Demonstration Date:
September 1992
CeTech Resources, Inc. Solidification and Sam Pizzitola Edwin Barth Soil, Sludge, Heavy Metals
(A Subsidiary of Chemfix Technologies, Stabilization/Portable Equipment 504-461-0466 513-569-7669 Solids, Ash,
Inc.) Salvage Company in Clackamas, Electroplating
St. Rose, LA (002) OR Wastes
Demonstration Date:
March 1989
CF Systems Corporation Solvent Extraction/New Bedford Chris Shallice Laurel Staley Soil, Sludge, Not Applicable
Woburn, MA (002) Harbor Superfund Site in New 617-937-0800 513-569-7863 Wastewater
Demonstration Date: Bedford, MA
September 1988
B-7
TABLE B-2

Inorgan
Chemical Waste Management,Inc. PO*WW*ER ? Technology/ Annamarie Connolly Randy Parker Wastewater, Metals, Volatile
Schaumburg, IL (005) Developer's Facility in Lake 708-706-6900 513-569-7271 Leachate, Inorganic Comp
Demonstration Date: Charles, LA Groundwater Salts, Radionuc
September 1992
Chemical Waste Management,Inc. X*TRAX? Thermal Desorption/ Carl Palmer Paul dePercin Soil, Sludge, Other Not Applicable
Anderson, SC (003) Re-Solve, Inc., Superfund Site in 803-646-2413 513-569-7797 Solids
Demonstration Date: North Dartmouth, MA
May 1992
Dehydro-Tech Corporation Carver-Greenfield Process® for Theodore Trowbridge Laurel Staley Soil, Sludge, Not Applicable
East Hanover, NJ (004) Solvent Extraction of Oily 201-887-2182 513-569-7863 Sediments
Demonstration Date: Waste/EPA Research Facility in
August 1991 Edison, NJ
E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Membrane Microfiltration/ Ernest Mayer John Martin Groundwater, Heavy Metals,
Co. and Oberlin Filter Co. Palmerton Zinc Superfund Site in 302-366-3652 513-569-7758 Leachate, Uranium
Newark, DE and Waukesha, WI (003) Palmerton, PA Wastewater,
Demonstration Date: Electroplating
April - May 1990 Rinsewaters
ECOVA Corporation Bioslurry Reactor/EPA Test and William Mahaffey Ronald Lewis Soil Not Applicable
Golden, CO (006) Evaluation Facility in Cinc
innati, 303-273-7177 513-569-7856
Demonstration Date: OH
May - September 1991
ELI Eco Logic International, Inc. Gas-Phase Chemical Reduction Jim Nash Gordon Evans Soil, Sludge, Not Applicable
Rockwood, Ontario, Canada (006) Process/Middleground Landfill in 519-856-9591 513-569-7684 Liquids, Gases
Demonstration Date: Bay City, MI
October - November 1992
ELI Eco Logic International, Inc. Thermal Desorption Unit/ Jim Nash Gordon Evans Soil, Sludge, Not Applicable
Rockwood, Ontario, Canada (006) Middleground Landfill in Bay City, 519-856-9591 513-569-7684 Liquids, Gases
Demonstration Date: MI
October - November 1992
EPOC Water, Inc. Precipitation, Microfiltration, and Gary Bartman Jack Hubbard Sludge, Heavy Metals
Fresno, CA (004) Sludge Dewatering/Iron Mountain 209-291-8144 513-569-7507 Wastewater,
Demonstration Date: Superfund Site in Redding, CA Leachable Soil
May 1992
B-8
TABLE B-2

Inorgan
Filter Flow Technology, Inc. Heavy Metals and Radionuclide Tod Johnson Annette Gatchett Groundwater, Heavy Metals,
League City, TX (006) Polishing Filter/Rocky Flats Plant 713-334-6080 513-569-7697 Industrial Radionuclides
Demonstration Date: in Golden, CO Wastewater
September 1993
Funderburk & Associates (formerly Dechlorination and Ray Funderburk Paul dePercin Soil, Sludge, Heavy Metals
HAZCON, Inc.) Immobilization/Former Oil 903-545-2004 513-569-7797 Sediments
Oakwood, TX (001) Processing Plant in
Demonstration Date: Douglassville, PA
October 1987
General Atomics Circulating Bed Jeffrey Broido Douglas Grosse Soil, Sludge, Slurry, Metals, Cya
(formerly Ogden Environmental Combustor/Ogden's Facility in La 619-455-4495 513-569-7844 Liquids
Services) Jolla, CA, using waste from
San Diego, CA (001) McColl Superfund Site in
Demonstration Date: Fullerton, CA
March 1989
GIS/Solutions, Inc. GIS/Key? Environmental Data Asad Al-Malazi Dick Eilers Not Applicable Not Applicable
Concord, CA (007) Management Software/San 510-827-5400 513-569-7809
Demonstration Date: Francisco, CA
August 1993
Gruppo Italimpresse (developedby Infrared Thermal Rome Laurel Staley Soil, Sediment Not Applicable
Shirco Infrared Systems, Inc.) Destruction/Peak Oil Superfund 011-39-06-8802001 513-569-7863
Rome, Italy (001) Site in Brandon, FL, and Rose Padova
(2 Demonstrations) Township Superfund Site in 011-39-049-773490
Demonstration Dates: Oakland County, MI
Florida: August 1987
Michigan: November 1987
Horsehead Resource Development Co., Flame Reactor/Developer's Regis Zagrocki Donald Oberacker Soil, Sludge, Metals
Inc. (HRD) Facility in Monaca, PA, using 412-773-2289 513-569-7510 Industrial Solid
Monaca, PA (004) waste from National Smelting and Marta Richards Residues
Demonstration Date: Refining Company Superfund 513-569-7783
March 1991 Site in Atlanta, GA
Hrubetz Environmental Services,Inc. HRUBOUT® Process/Kelly AFB Michael Hrubetz or Gordon Evans Soil Not Applicable
Dallas, TX (007) in San Antonio, TX Barbara Hrubetz 513-569-7684
Demonstration Date: 214-363-7833
January - February 1993
B-9
TABLE B-2
Technology/ Technology EPA Project Waste Media

Developer Demonstration Location Contact Manager
Inorgan
Hughes Environmental Systems, Inc. Steam Enhanced Recovery Ron Van Sickle Paul dePercin Soil, Groundwater Not Applicable
Manhattan Beach, CA (005) Process/Fuel Spill Site in 310-616-6634 513-569-7797
Demonstration Date: Huntington Beach, CA
August 1991 - September 1993
Illinois Institute of Technology Research Radio Frequency Heating/Kelly Paul Carpenter Laurel Staley Soil Not Applicable
Institute/Halliburton NUS AFB in San Antonio, TX 904-283-6022 513-569-7863
Oak Ridge, TN (007) Clifton Blanchard
August 1993 Guggliam Sresty
312-567-4232
International Waste Technologies/ In Situ Solidification and Jeff Newton Mary Stinson Soil, Sediment Nonspecific Ino
Geo-Con, Inc. Stabilization Process / General 316-269-2660 908-321-6683
Wichita, KS and Monroeville, PA (001) Electric Service Shop in Hialeah, Chris Ryan
(2 Demonstrations) FL 412-856-7700
Demonstration Date:
April - May 1988
Magnum Water Technology CAV-OX® Process/Edwards Dale Cox Dick Eilers Groundwater, Not Applicable
El Segundo, CA (007) AFB, CA 310-322-4143 513-569-7809 Wastewater
Demonstration Date: Jack Simser
March 1993 310-640-7000
NOVATERRA, Inc. In Situ Steam and Air Philip LaMori Paul dePercin Soil Nonspecific Ino
(formerly Toxic Treatments USA, Inc.) Stripping/Annex Terminal, San 310-843-3190 513-569-7797 Heavy Metals
Torrance, CA (003) Pedro, CA
Demonstration Date:
September 1989
Peroxidation Systems, Inc. perox-pure? Advanced Oxidation Chris Giggy Norma Lewis Groundwater, Not Applicable
Tucson, AZ (006) Technology/LawrenceLivermore 602-790-8383 513-569-7665 Wastewater
Demonstration Date: National Laboratory in Altamont
September 1992 Hills, CA
Resources Conservation Company B.E.S.T. Solvent Extraction Lanny Weimer Mark Meckes Soil, Sludge, Not Applicable
Ellicott City, MD (001) Technology/Grand Calumet River 301-596-6066 513-569-7348 Sediment
Demonstration Date: in Gary, IN
July 1992
B-10
TABLE B-2

Inorgan
Retech, Inc. Plasma Arc Vitrification/DOE Ronald Womack or Laurel Staley Soils, Sludge Metals
Ukiah, CA (002) Component Development and Leroy Leland 513-569-7863
Demonstration Date: Integration Facility in Butte, MT 707-462-6522
July 1991
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory Base-Catalyzed Dechlorination Charles Rogers Terrence Lyons Soils, Sediments Not Applicable
Cincinnati, OH (006) Process/Koppers Company 513-569-7626 513-569-7589
Demonstration Date: Superfund Site in Morrisville, NC Yei-Shong Shieh
August 1993 215-832-0700
Risk Reduction Engineering Volume Reduction Unit/ Richard Griffiths Teri Richardson Soil Metals
Laboratory Escambia Wood Preserving Site 908-321-6629 513-569-7949
Cincinnati, OH (007) in Pensacola, FL
Demonstration Date:
November 1992
Risk Reduction EngineeringLaboratory Debris Washing System/ Michael Taylor or Naomi Barkley Debris Nonspecific Ino
and IT Corporation Superfund Sites in Detroit, MI; Majid Dosani 513-569-7854
Cincinnati, OH (004) Hopkinsville, KY; and Walker 513-782-4700
Demonstration Dates: County, GA
September 1988, December 1989, and
August 1990
Risk Reduction EngineeringLaboratory Hydraulic Fracturing/Feasibility Larry Murdoch Naomi Barkley Soil, Groundwater Nonspecif
and University of Cincinnati Studies Conducted in Oakbrook, 513-556-2526 513-569-7854
Cincinnati, OH (005) IL, and Dayton, OH
Demonstration Date:
July 1991 - September 1992
Risk Reduction EngineeringLaboratory Fungal Treatment Technology/ Richard Lamar Kim Lisa Kreiton Soil Not Applicable
and USDA Forest Products Laboratory Brookhaven Wood Preserving in 608-231-9469 513-569-7328
Cincinnati, OH (006) Brookhaven, MS John Glaser
September 1991 - November 1992
B-11
TABLE B-2

Inorgan
SBP Technologies, Inc. Membrane Filtration and David Drahos Kim Lisa Kreiton Groundwater, Soils, Not Applicable
Stone Mountain, GA (005) Bioremediation/American 404-498-6666 513-569-7328 Sludges
Demonstration Date: Creosote Works in Pensacola, FL
October 1991
Silicate Technology Corporation Chemical Fixation/Solidification Stephen Pelger or Edward Bates Soil, Sludge, Metals, Cyanid
Scottsdale, AZ (003) Treatment Technologies/Selma Scott Larsen 513-569-7774 Wastewater
Demonstration Date: Pressure Treating Site in Selma, 602-948-7100
November 1990 CA
b
J.R. Simplot Company Biodegradation of Dinoseb/ Dane Higdem Wendy Davis-Hoover Soil Not Applicable
Pocatello, ID (007) Bowers Field in Ellensburg, WA 208-234-5367 513-569-7206
Demonstration Date:
July 1993
b
J.R. Simplot Company Biodegradation of Dane Higdem Wendy Davis-Hoover Soil Not Applicable
Pocatello, ID (007) Trinitrotoluene/DOD Site in St. 208-234-5367 513-569-7206
Demonstration Date: Louis, MO
September 1993 - October 1993
SoilTech ATP Systems, Inc. Anaerobic Thermal Processor/ Roger Nielson Paul dePercin Soil, Sludge, Not Applicable
Englewood, CO (005) Wide Beach Superfund Site in 303-290-8336 513-569-7797 Refinery Wastes
(2 Demonstrations) Brant, NY, and Waukegan Harbor Joseph Hutton
Demonstration Dates: Superfund Site in Waukegan, IL 219-926-8651
New York: May 1991
Illinois: June 1992
Soliditech, Inc. Solidification and Stabilization/ Bill Stallworth Jack Hubbard Soil, Sludge Metals, Nonspe
Houston, TX (002) Imperial Oil Company/ 713-497-8558 513-569-7507 Inorganics
Demonstration Date: Champion Chemical Company
December 1988 Superfund Site in Morganville, NJ
Terra Vac, Inc. In Situ Vacuum Extraction/ James Malot Mary Stinson Soil Not Applicable
San Juan, PR (001) Groveland Wells Superfund Site 809-723-9171 908-321-6683
Demonstration Date: in Groveland, MA
December 1987 - April 1988
Toronto Harbour Commission Soil Recycling/Toronto Port Dennis Lang Teri Richardson Soil Nonspecific Ino
Toronto, Ontario, Canada (007) Industrial District in Toronto, 416-863-2047 513-569-7949
Demonstration Date: Ontario
April - May 1992
B-12
TABLE B-2

Inorgan
Ultrox International Ultraviolet Radiationand David Fletcher Norma Lewis Groundwater, Not Applicable
Santa Ana, CA (003) Oxidation/Lorentz Barrel and 714-545-5557 513-569-7665 Leachate,
Demonstration Date: Drum Company in San Jose, CA Wastewater
March 1989
EPA Excavation Techniques and FoamJohn Blevins Jack Hubbard Soil Volatile Inorgan
San Francisco, CA (007) Suppression Methods/ 415-744-2241 513-569-7507
Demonstration Date: McColl Superfund Site in
June - July 1990 Fullerton, CA
WASTECH Inc. Solidification and Stabilization/ Benjamin Peacock Terrence Lyons Soil, Sludge, Liquid Nonspecific Ra
Oak Ridge, TN (004) Robins AFB in Warner Robins, 615-483-6515 513-569-7589 Waste Inorganics
Demonstration Date: GA
August 1991
Roy F. Weston, Inc. Low Temperature Thermal Mike Cosmos Paul dePercin Soil, Sludge Not Applicable
West Chester, PA (006) Treatment (LT³®) System/ 215-430-7423 513-569-7797
Demonstration Date: Anderson Development Company
November - December 1991 Superfund Site in Adrian, MI
Roy F. Weston, Inc./IEG Technologies UVB - Vacuum Vaporizing Jeff Bannon or Michelle Simon Groundwater Not Applicable
Woodland Hills, CA (007) Well/March AFB, CA Ron Chu 513-569-7469
May - November 1993 Eric Klingel
704-357-6090
b
From Eme
Source: EPA, November 1993. Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program, Technology Profiles,Sixth Edition, EPA
B-13
TABLE OF C
SectionTitlePage
INTRODUCTION C-1
FEDERAL DATA BASES L
C.1 ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION CENTER (ATTIC)C-11
C.2 CASE STUDY DATA SYSTEMC-13
C.3 CLEANUP INFORMATION BULLETIN BOARD SYSTEM (CLU-IN)C-14
C.4 COST OF REMEDIAL ACTION (CORA) MODELC-16
C.5 DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL ELECTRONIC BULLETIN BOARD SYSTEM (DEEBBS)C-18
C.6 DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK INFORMATION EXCHANGE (DENIX)C-19
C.7 DEFENSE RDT&E ONLINE SYSTEM (DROLS)C-20
C.8 ENERGY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DATA BASEC-21
C.9 ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM (ETIS)C-23
C.10 ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES REMEDIAL ACTIONS DATA EXCHANGE (EnviroTRAD
C.11 ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION SYSTEM (TIS)C-26
C.12 HAZARDOUS WASTE SUPERFUND COLLECTION DATA BASE (HWSFD)C-28
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-i
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
C.13 INSTALLATION RESTORATION DATA MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMC-30
C.14 NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE (NTIS) BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA BASEC
C.15 NEW TECHNOLOGY FROM DOE (NTD)
C.16 PROSPECTIVE TECHNOLOGY (PROTECH) AND THE

TECHNOLOGY CATALOGUE
C.17 RECORDS OF DECISION SYSTEM (RODS)
C.18 REOPT: ELECTRONIC ENCYCLOPEDIA OF REMEDIAL ACTION

OPTIONS
C.19 RESEARCH IN PROGRESS (RIP) DATA BASE
C.20 RREL TREATABILITY DATA BASE
C.21 SOIL TRANSPORT AND FATE DATA BASE
C.22 TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION SYSTEM SUPPORT (TISS)
C.23 WASTE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES
C.24 U.S. ARMY HOTLINE
C.25 CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH INFORMATION (CERI)
C.26 DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER (DTIC)
C-ii
FEDERAL DATA BASES AND ADDITIONAL INFOR
C.27 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE (GPO)
C.28 NATIONAL CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLICATION5

AND INFORMATION
C.29 NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE (NTIS)
C.30 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (ORD) BULLETIN BOARD
C.31 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ELECTRONIC BULLETIN BOARD SYSTEM (O

BBS)
C.32 PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTER (PIC)
C.33 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE DIRECTORY
C.34 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER NEWSLETTER
C-iii
FEDERAL DATA B
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
? INTRODUCTION
The profiles contained in this appendix were ide ntified through a review of reports, articles, and publicati
Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR) member agencies and telephone interviews with data base
members include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Department of Defense (DOD),
Energy (DOE), and U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). In addition, the National Aeronautics and Spa
(NASA) participates in FRTR meetings.
This appendix is a reference tool that provides information on those systems maintaining data on remedial
may be used by project managers as a pointer to repositories of technical information, or as a source of co
useful to future system design. Each data base profile contains information on data elements, system use
software requirements, and access. The profiles also contain contacts for each system. A matrix showing
characteristics of the data bases included in this document is provid ed in Table C-1. Table C-2 summariz
contained in the data base profiles.
Additional information sources are provided on pages C -50 through C-60. For each information source,
address, telephone numbers, hours of op eration, description of service, and the primary focus are provide
C-1
TABLE C-1
SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS OF FEDERAL DATA BASES
Technology Performance Cost Case Updated User Public

System Name Description Data Data Studies Periodically Fee Access
Alternative Treatment Technology x x x x x

Information Center (ATTIC)
Case Study Data System x x x
CLU-IN Bulletin Board System (BBS) x x x
Cost of Remedial Action Model (CORA) x x x x
Defense Environmental Electronic x x

Bulletin Board System (DEEBS)
Defense Environmental Network x x

Information Exchange (DENIX)
Defense RDT&E Online System (DROLS) x x x
Energy Science and Technology Data x x x x x

Base
Environmental Technical Information x x x

System (ETIS)
Environmental Technologies Remedial x x x x

Actions Data Exchange (EnviroTRADE)
Environmental Technology Informati

on x x x x
System (TIS)
Hazardous Waste Superfund Data x x x x x

Collection
C-2
TABLE C-1
SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS OF FEDERAL DATA BASES
(CONTINUED)
Technology Performance Cost Case Updated User Public

System Name Description Data Data Studies Periodically Fee Access
Installation Restoration Data x

Management Information System
(IRDMIS)
National Technical Information Service x x x x x x

Bibliographic Data Base
New Technology from DOE (NTD) x x x
ProTech & the Technology Catalogue x x x
Record of Decision System (RODS) x x x
ReOpt: Electronic Encyclopedia of x x x x x

Remedial Action Options
Research in Progress x x x
RREL Treatability Data Base x x x
Soil Transport and Fate Data Base x
Technology Integration System Support x x x x x

(TISS)
Waste Management Information System x x x

(WMIS)
C-3
TABLE C-2
SUMMARY TABLE OF FEDERAL DATA BASES
Data/Technology
Name Objective Information Hardware/Software
Alternative Treatment ATTIC is an information The data base contains A computer, modem, and
Technology Information retrieval network that abstracts from more than communications software
Center (ATTIC) provides site remediation 2,000 technical references, are required to access the
managers with technical including books, EPA system.
information on alternative publications, journal articles,
treatment methods for and treatability studies.
remediating hazardous
waste.
Case Study Data System This data system stores and The data system contains The data base system is
retrieves case-specific more than 200 case studies written in dBase III and
information to support rule that address topics such as formatted for an IBM PC.
and guidance development floodplains, disposal
activities affecting facility technology, treatment, and
siting, corrective action, and environmental effects.
closure.
CLU-IN Bulletin Board The system serves as a The system offers A computer, modem, and
System (BBS) communications mechanism messages, bulletins, communications software
to assist hazardous waste computer files, and data are required to access the
cleanup professionals obtain bases. system.
current information about
innovative cleanup
technologies.
Cost of Remedial Action This computerized expert The model is comprised of CORA is a stand-alone
Model (CORA) model is designed to two independent system requiring an IBM or
recommend remedial actions subsystems: an expert compatible PC, MS-DOS
for Superfund hazardous system that uses site environment, 640K RAM,
C-4
TABLE C-2
(CONTINUED)
Data/Technology
waste sites and estimate the information to recommend a and 5MB of hard disk space.
cost of these actions. range of remedial response
actions, and a cost system
that develops cost estimates
for the technologies
selected.
Defense Environmental This system serves as a The system provides user The system can be accessed
Electronic Bulletin Board centralized communications mail service, multi-user with a dumb terminal or a
System (DEEBS) platform for disseminating access, and PC with a modem and
DERP information pertaining upload/download features. It communications software.
to DOD's scheduled permits access to 800
meetings, training, clean-up number dial in and to other
sites, and technologies. environmental data
networks.
Defense Environmental To provide DOD personnel DENIX provides the The system can be accessed
Network Information (DENIX) information on capability to review only by DOD personnel. A
environmental, legislative, environmental publications password is necessary to
compliance, restoration, online, send and receive access the system. DENIX
cleanup, and DOD guidance electronic mail via DENIX is available online.
information. host and the internet, and
enter the interactive
discussion forums on
various subjects.
Defense RDT & E Online This bibliographic data base The system provides access The system is available
System (DROLS) provides information on to three separate data bases: through dial-up to the
DOD's ongoing research and Research Work Unit Defense Technical
technology efforts. Information System, Information Center's central
C-5
TABLE C-2
(CONTINUED)
Data/Technology
Technical Report Data Base, computer system.
and Independent Research
and Development Data
Base.
Energy Science and This multidisciplinary The system includes The system is available via
Technology Data Base bibliographic file contains references to journal dial-up through DOE's
worldwide references to literature, conferences, Integrated Technical
basic and applied scientific patents, book, monographs, Information System (ITIS)
and technical research theses, and engineering and and to the public through
literature. software materials. DIALOG Information
Services.
Environmental Technical This system is designed to ETIS's subsystems include The system is available via
Information System (ETIS) help DOD conduct analyses data and information dial-up with a computer,
to document environmental exchange on chemicals, modem, and
consequences of its regulations, hazardous communications software
activities. materials, and hazardous capable of VT-100
wastes. emulation.
Environmental Technologies This system is being The system will contain The system will be available
Remedial Actions Data designed to help facilitate information on international to DOE users in 1993 and
Exchange (EnviroTRADE) the exchange of environmental restoration other users at a later date.
environmental restoration and waste management Hardware and software
and waste management technologies, organizations, requirements have not been
technologies. sites, activities, funding, and finalized.
contacts.
Environmental Technology This system provides The system offers advice on The system can be accessed
Information System (TIS) technical experts with screening remedial options via dial-up using a PC,
C-6
TABLE C-2
(CONTINUED)
Data/Technology
information aboutpotential based on site-specific input minicomputer, or mainframe.
waste cleanup technologies. information. Special software is required.
Hazardous Waste Superfund This online bibliographic The system includes The system is available
Collection Data Base data base correspondsto a bibliographic references and online through the EPA
special collection of abstracts on EPA reports, Online Library System or it
hazardous waste documents OSWER policy and can be downloaded from
located throughout the EPA guidance directives, CLU-IN. Both methods of
library network. legislation, regulations, and access require a PC,
non-government books. modem, and communica-
tions software.
Installation Restoration Data This data base supports The data base contains The system requires
Management Information technical and managerial analytical results from software provided by
System (IRDMIS) requirements of the Army's chemical, geotechnical, and USAEC.
Installation Restoration radiological sampling.
Program and other
environmental efforts.
National Technical This is a bibliographic The system consists of The data base is available
Information Service (NTIS) retrieval system that unclassified government- through a number of
Bibliographic Data Base references the reports of sponsored research, commercial data base
major federal agencies. development, and vendors, such as DIALOG,
engineering reports, as well BRS, STN, Orbit, and CISTI.
as other analyses prepared
by government agencies and
their contractors.
New Technology from DOE This system is designed to The system includes The data base is available to
(NTD) disseminate information technology descriptions, DOE users with a computer,
C-7
TABLE C-2
(CONTINUED)
Data/Technology
about DOE research results patent status, secondary modem, and
that have potential for applications, literature communications software
commercialization. citations, and DOE capable of VT-100
information. emulation.
Protech and the Technology 1. Minimize the time and Description of technologies Macintosh Computer
Catalogue effort that field personnel supported under Integrated Platform.
spend providing information Demonstrations (IDs).
on their technologies.
2. Provide more detailed

technical cost performance
data on deployable
technologies advanced by
DOE's Office of Technology
Development (EM-50) to its
customers, DOE's Offices of
Waste Management (EM-30)
and Environmental
Restoration (EM-40) and
their contractors.
Records of Decision System This system provides The data base contains the A personal computer,
(RODS) comprehensive information full text of all signed Records modem and
on Superfund Records of of Decision. communications software
Decision for hazardous are required to access the
Waste cleanup sites system.
nationwide.
ReOpt: Electronic The system provides The system contains The system runs on IBM-PC
C-8
TABLE C-2
(CONTINUED)
Data/Technology
Encyclopedia ofRemedial information collected from diagrams, descriptions, and compatibles in a
Action Options EPA, DOE, and other engineering or design WINDOWS ? environment
sources about remedial parameters, contaminants and Macintosh II (or
action technologies. treated, technical and greater). It requires at least
regulatory constraints, and 5 megabytes of RAM and 12
other information for about megabytes of hard disk
90 technologies. space. OMNIS SEVEN?
software is embedded in the
system, and a fee is required
for a license and installation
materials.
Research in Progress Data This data base bridges the The data base contains A computer, modem, and
Base information gap that occurs administrative and technical communications software
between initiation and information about all capable of VT-100 emulation
completion of a research unclassified current and are required to access the
project by providing recently completed research system.
information about ongoing projects performed or funded
research projects. by DOE.
RREL Treatability Data Base The data base provides The system contains 1,207 The data base is menu-
treatability data for the compounds with 13,500 data driven and can be loaded on
removal/destruction of sets. an IBM or compatible PC
organic and inorganic with DOS Version 2.0 to 6.0,
chemicals in aqueous and 640K RAM, and 7MB of hard
solid media. disk storage. It is also
available for downloading
through CLU-IN.
Soil Transport and Fate Data The data base provides The data base includes The data base will run on
C-9
TABLE C-2
(CONTINUED)
Data/Technology
Base and Model information on chemical information on any IBM-compatible
Management System properties, toxicity, approximately 400 computer with 640K RAM,
transformation, and chemicals as well as models 12.5 MB of hard disk
bioaccumulation for for predicting the fate and storage, and a math
hundreds of chemical transport of hazardous coprocessor.
compounds. organic constituents in the
vadose zone.
Technology Integration This system supports DOE Includes DOE environmental NextStep system, which runs
System Support (TISS) in the development of new technologies, points of object-oriented Knowledge
environmental technologies contact, DOE documents, Base on 486 platform.
by providing a central focus vendor information, DOE
for information exchange procurement activities, and
between DOE and industry, requestor data bases.
other federal agencies
(OFAs), and universities.
Waste Management The system provides an The system includes waste WMIS resides on a Novel
Information System (WMIS) accurate and complete generation/process data, local area network at DOE.
resource for the explanation information on T/S/D
and selection of appropriate capabilities, and waste
technologies for handling profiles.
hazardous, mixed,
radioactive, or remedial
action waste.
C-10
FEDERAL DATA BASES
? C.1 ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION CENTER

(ATTIC)
Sponsoring Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Edison, NJ
Description of Services: ATTIC is a comprehensive information retrieval system

containing data on alternative treatment technologies for
hazardous waste. It contains several data bases that are
accessed through a free public access bulletin board. The
central component of ATTIC is the Treatment Technology
Data base, which contains abstracts andsummaries from
technical documents that are free-text searchable. Search
results can then be downloaded for review on the user's
computer. Access is also provided to a number of other
data bases, including a technology performance/treatability
study data base and an underground storage tank data base.
New features include full text downloadable files of key
treatment technology documents, including Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program
documents. The bulletin board also features news items,
bulletins, and E-mail.
Data: ATTIC users can access four data bases directly through
the BBS:
· ATTIC Data Base (contains more than 2,000

records on alternative treatment technologies for
remediating hazardous waste).
· RREL Treatability Data Base (provides data on

the treatability of contaminated water and soil).
· Technical Assistance Directory (identifies experts

on a given technology or contaminant).
· Calendar of Events (lists of upcoming conferences

and events).
Access: Users can dial directly into the ATTIC system through their
own computer by dialing (703) 908 -2138. Users without
access to a computer or those with questions about the
system can contact the system operator for assistance.
Hardware/Software: ATTIC is accessible byany PC or terminal equipped with
MK01\RPT:02281012.009 \compgde.apc 10/31/00
C-11
communications software and a modem.
Contact: ATTIC Project Manager

EPA/RREL
2890 Woodbridge Ave. (MS-106)
Edison, NJ 08837
(908) 321 -6677
FAX (908) 906-6990
C-12
FEDERAL DATA BASES
? C.2 CASE STUDY DATA SYSTEM

Office of Solid Waste
Washington, DC
Description of Services: The Case Study Data System (CSDS) is an inventory of

more than 220 case studies that were developed to support
RCRA rule and guidance development activities affecting
facility location, RCRA Corrective Action, and closure.
The system was completed in April 1990. The system can
be used to identify case studies that contain information on
treatment technologies used at various specific hazardous
waste sites.
Data: The case studies are organized by number in a library at

EPA. The CSDS is the indexing system for this library
that identifies appropriate case studies by using data fields
and keywords. The case studies contain formatted
information about the geology, general problems, processes
associated with waste handling, and treatment technologies
(including innovative, standard, and regular procedures) for
specific sites. The case studies address a variety of topics
such as floodplains, disposal technology, treatment, and
environmental effects.
Access: The data base is available for downloading from the

Cleanup Information (CLU-IN) Bulletin Board. The
manual is available to those who fill out an online script
questionnaire on CLU-IN requesting a copy.
Hardware/Software: The Case Study Data System is written in dBase III and is
formatted for use on an IBM PC or compatible computer.
Contact: Andy O'Palko

EPA/Office of Solid Waste
Mail Code 5303W
401 M St., SW
(703) 308-8646
FAX (703) 308-8617
C-13
? C.3 CLEANUP INFORMATION BULLETIN BOARD SYSTEM (CLU-IN)

Technology Innovation Office
Washington, DC
Description of Services: The RCRA CLU-IN is designed for hazardous waste

cleanup professionals to use in finding current events
information about innovative technologies, consulting with
one another online, and accessing data bases. CLU-IN is
used by those involved in the cleanup of Superfund, RCRA
corrective action, and underground storage tank sites,
including EPA staff, other federal and state personnel,
consulting engineers, technology vendors, remediation
contractors, researchers, community groups, and the
public.
Data: CLU-IN has the following features:
· Electronic messages allowing users to leave

messages for individual users or to a large
audience of users.
· Bulletins that can be read online, such as

summaries of Federal Register and Commerce
Business Daily notices on hazardous waste,
descriptions and listings of EPA documents, a
calendar of EPA training courses, notices of
upcoming meetings and SITE Program
demonstrations, and the text of EPA newsletters.
· Files that can be downloaded for use on the user's

computer— such as directories, data bases, models,
and EPA documents.
· Online Data Bases that can be searched on CLU-

IN.
In addition, CLU-IN has special interest group areas

(SIGs) with all of the functions of the main board, but
limited to a particular group or subject area. Examples of
SIGs include treatability study investigation, OSC/
removal, and groundwater technologies.
Access: Users can dial directly into CLU-IN at (301) 589-8366.
C-14
FEDERAL DATA BASES
Communications settings are:
· 8 data bits
· 1 stop bit
· No parity
· 1200-9600 baud
· VT-100 terminal emulation
Hardware/Software: To access CLU-IN, you will need a computer, modem,

telephone line, and communications software.
Contact: CLU-IN System Operator

(301) 589 -8368
FAX (301) 589-8487
C-15
? C.4 COST OF REMEDIAL ACTION (CORA) MODEL

Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Washington, DC
Description of Services: The Cost of Remedial Action (CORA) Model is a

computerized expert advisor used to recommen d remedial
actions for Superfund hazardous waste sites and estimate
their costs. The stand-alone PC-based system may also be
used for RCRA corrective action sites. The model is
designed for both current site-specific estimates and for
program budgeting and planning. The system provides
recommendations for remedial action technologies on a
site-specific basis, and provides a method to estimate
remedial action costs in the pre-feasibility stage of analysis.
Data: The CORA Model is comprised of two independent

subsystems:
· Expert System— allows a user to enter site

information generally accessible at the remedial
investigation stage and recommends a range of
remedial response actions from among 44
technology descriptions contained in the system. It
includes descriptions of innovative treatment
technologies:
- Soil vapor extraction

- Solidification
- Soil slurry bioreactor
- Pressure filtration
- Soil flushing
- In situ biodegradation
- In situ stabilization
· Cost System— develops order of magnitude (+50/-

30%) cost estimates for the technologies selected
and may be used to independently assess remedy
recommendations from other sources.
Access: The model is available from the contact below for a cost of
$280, which includes a run-time version of the system and
1 hour of technical assistance.
C-16
FEDERAL DATA BASES
Hardware/Software: The CORA Model is a stand-alone application, not

designed for LAN use. The following are the hardware
specifications:
· IBM-compatible PC
· MS-DOS environment
· 640 kilobytes of RAM
· 5 megabytes of hard disk space
Contact: CORA Hotline:

Jaya Zyman
CH2M Hill
625 Herndon Parkway
Herndon, VA 22070
(703) 478 -3566
FAX (703) 4810980
C-17
? C.5 DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL ELECTRONIC BULLETIN BOARD

SYSTEM (DEEBBS)
Sponsoring Agency: U.S. Department of Defense

Washington, DC
Description of Services: The Defense Environmental Electronic Bulletin Board

System (DEEBBS) serves as a centralized communication
platform for disseminating Defense Environme ntal
Restoration Program (DERP) information pertaining to
DOD's cleanup sites, technologies, program policy and
guidance, scheduled meetings, and training. It fosters
online communications and technology transfer among
DOD components.
Data: DEEBBS contains a messaging component as well as the

capability for file transfers. DEEBBS includes information
on cleanup technologies, policies, and regulatory
information.
Access: DEEBBS is an online system available only to DOD

personnel.
Hardware/Software: The system can be accessed with a dumb terminal or a

computer, modem, and communications software.
Contact: For online access:

Kim Grein
CERL/USACE
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
(800) USA-CERL, ext. 652
FAX (217) 373-7222
Patricia Jensen
Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
(Environment)
Pentagon, Room 3D833
Washington, DC 20301-8000
(703) 695 -7820
FAX (703) 697-7548
C-18
FEDERAL DATA BASES
? C.6 DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK INFORMATION EXCHANGE

(DENIX)
Description of Services: Defense Environmental Network Information Exchange

(DENIX) was developed to provide DOD personnel in the
environmental arena with a central communications
platform that allows timely access to environmental,
legislative, compliance restoration, cleanup, and DOD
guidance information.
Data: The following information is available on the DENIX data

base.
· Current world, national, federal, and state news.

· Service-specific news, events, and reports.
· Current policy, guidance, and directives.
· Legislative and regulatory news.
· Environmental publications.
· Training directories.
· Environmental contacts directory.
· Presidential and Congressional calendars.
· Discussion forums.
Access: The data base is available only to DOD personnel.

Application procedures and a password are required to
access the data base.
Hardware/Software: DENIX provides the capability to review environmental

publications online, send and receive electronic mail via the
DENIX host and the Internet, enter into interactive
discussion forums about various subject areas, upload and
download data files, and access listings of environmental
training.
Contact: Kim Grein

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 9005
(217) 373 -4519
FAX (217) 373-4421
C-19
? C.7 DEFENSE RDT&E Online System (DROLS)

Defense Technical Information Center
Description of Services: The Defense RDT&E Online System (DROLS) was

developed by the Defense Technical Information Center
(DTIC) to provide online access to its data collection of
ongoing DOD research and technology efforts. The system
includes citations to reports distributed by DOD. DROLS
is used to identify, input, and order documents. The system
can be searched by author, source, date, title, subject,
project, contract, report numbers, and funding sources.
Data: DROLS provides access to three separate data bases:
· Research and Technology Work Unit Information

System (WUIS) Data Base (containing ongoing
DOD research and technology efforts at the work
unit level).
· Technical Report Data Base (consisting of

bibliographic records of technical reports
submitted to DTIC).
· Independent Research and Development (IR&D)

Data Base (containing contractors' independent
research and development efforts shared with
DOD). This data base is proprietary and accessible
only to classified DOD terminals.
Access: DROLS is an online system that can beaccessed through

the DTIC central computer system. To subscribe to the
online system, contact DTIC at the number below.
Hardware/Software: Classified users are required to use dedicated phone lines

requiring special encryption equipment or STU-III
installation. Dial-up or dedicated access to DROLS is
available for unclassified users.
Contact: Defense Technical Information Center

Attn: Registration and Services Branch (DTIC-BCS)
Building 5, Cameron Station
Alexandria, VA 22304
(703) 274 -6871
C-20
FEDERAL DATA BASES
? C.8 ENERGY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DATA BASE
Sponsoring Agency: U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Science and Technical Information
Oak Ridge, TN
Description of Services: The Energy Science and Technology Data Base is a multi-
disciplinary bibliographic data base containing references
to basic and applied scientific and technical energy- and
nuclear-science related research literature worldwide. The
information is collected for use by government managers
and researchers at the DOE National Laboratories, other
DOE researchers, and the public. Abstracts are included
for most records. Items date from 1976 to the present, with
older literature included in some subject areas.
Data: The Energy Science and Technology Data Base includes

references to journal literature, conferences, patents, books,
monographs, theses, and engineering and software
materials. Approximately 50% of the references are from
foreign sources. Coverage includes the following areas of
energy-related research:
· Engineering
· Environmental sciences
· Geosciences
· Hazardous waste management
· Materials handling
The data base is continually updated by about 180,000

records per year. The system can be searched by author,
title, subject, and research organization.
Access: The Energy Science and Technology Data Base is available

to the public through DIALOG Information Services (a
commercial system) for a fee. A limited version of the
system is also available to DOE employees, DOE
contractors, and other government agencies through DOE's
Integrated Technical Information System (ITIS). In
addition, DIALOG has a companion file called Nuclear
Science Abstracts, covering the period from 1947 to mid-
1976, that is not available through ITIS.
Hardware/Software: Users can dial into the system through DIALOG with a
computer, modem, and communications software. DOE
users should contact ITIS for access.
C-21
Contact: Integrated Technical Information System (ITIS)

DOE/OSTI
P.O. Box 62
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
(615) 576 -1222
DIALOG Information Services

(800) 334 -2564
C-22
FEDERAL DATA BASES
? C.9 ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM (ETIS)
Sponsoring Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Construction Engineering Research Laboratory
Champaign, IL
Description of Services: The Environmental Technical Information System (ETIS)

is a minicomputer-based system designed to help DOD
personnel conduct environmental analyses to document
environmental consequences of its activities. The system is
now used by other federal agencies as well as the general
public.
Data: The ETIS system contains a number of subsystems

including:
· Environmental Impact Computer System (to

identify potential environmental impacts of
programs or activities).
· Computer-Aided Environmental Legislative Data

System (CELDS) (to allow users to search Federal
and State environmental regulations by keywords).
· Hazardous Materials Management System

(contains data on hazardous chemicals including
physical and chemical properties, guidance for
handling, storage, and transportation).
· Soils Information Retrieval System (provides

information on soils anywhere in the United
States).
· Hazardous Waste Management Information

System (assists in record-keeping for and
management of hazardous waste at military bases).
· Electronic bulletin boards (for networking with

others involved in site cleanup). Electronic
bulletin boards on ETIS include:
- Discuss with Experts Environmental

Problems (DEEP)— used primarily by
installation environmental officers.
Covers air quality, asbestos, wildlife
conservation, cultural resources,
C-23
compliance, environmental management,

noise conflict, resource conservation and
recovery, solid waste, and water quality.
Lists environmental experts at each Army
and Air Force base as well as training
courses and job listings.
- Hazardous Expertise (HAZE)— for users

involved in hazardous materials handling
and disposal. Covers disposal methods,
labeling, good management practices,
hazardous waste minimization, testing and
dispensing, spill control, hazardous
materials storage, and hazardous waste
treatment.
Access: Users can dial into ETIS once they have set up an account.
To obtain an account, military, DOE, and EPA users
should contact the CERL contact below. Private sector and
other users should contact the ETIS Support Center. There
is a connect hour fee for non-military and non-EPA users.
Hardware/Software: ETIS is accessible by a computer or terminal equipped

with communications software and a modem. VT-100
emulation is recomme nded.
Contact: ETIS Support Center

Elizabeth Dennison
1003 West Nevada St.
Urbana, IL 61801
(217) 333 -1369
Kim Grein
CERL/USACE
PO Box 9005
(800) USA-CERL, ext. 652
FAX (217) 373-7222
C-24
FEDERAL DATA BASES
? C.10 ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES REMEDIAL ACTIONS DATA

EXCHANGE (EnviroTRADE)

Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste
Management
Washington, DC
Description of Services: The Environmental Technologies Remedial Actions Data

Exchange (EnviroTRADE) is an international information
system that will facilitate the exchange of environmental
restoration and waste management technologies.
Data: EnviroTRADE contains both foreign and domestic

technologies and needs profiles. Users can identify
possible matches between worldwide environmental
restoration and waste management needs and technologies.
EnviroTRADE will also provide general information on
international environmental restoration and waste
management organizations, sites, activities, funding, and
contracts. The system is user friendly, providing visually
oriented information such as photographs, graphics, maps,
and diagrams of technologies and sites. The system has
expanded into a fully functionally geographical information
system (GIS).
Hardware/Software: EnviroTRADE is in the final stages of development. DOE

plans to make it available to DOE users in 1993 with
domestic and international networking to follow.
Informix/Online is the Relational Data Base Management
System and the Graphical user Interface is DevGuide.
EnviroTRADE is presently being developed on a SUN
workstation and will migrated to the PC and Macintosh in
FY93.
Access: Network access as planned will be online through Internet.
Contact: Susan Johnson

International Technology Exchange Program
DOE
Trevion II, EM-523
Washington, DC 20585-0002
(301) 903 -7930
C-25
? C.11 ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION SYSTEM (TIS)
Sponsoring Agency: Department of Energy

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
Idaho Falls, ID
Description of Services: The Environmental Technology Information System (TIS)

contains technology information relative to innovative and
available technologies to support environmental
management. Cost, vendor information, previous uses (if
any), and measures of effectiveness are included when
those data are available in the literature.
Uses of the TIS include:
· Online access to information regarding

technologies for environmental management
processes.
· Aid in identification of currently listed

technologies.
· Aid in access of other computerized information

(through "launch" of other computer programs).
· Documentation of technology choices.
· Linkage of information from one document to

another.
· Data collection and storage.
· Full-text retrieval of technology information.
Data: The TIS provides descriptive information gathered from

journals and other references, conference proceedings, and
expert experience. Retrieval of information is by any word
found within the TIS. Expert knowledge is built into the
TIS by use of logic trees to aid the uninitiated user.
Current users continue to add information to the TIS.
Access: While the TIS development project is not currently funded,

access of the present system is available to the DOE and its
contractors upon request. It is possible that the TIS will be
"privatized."
C-26
FEDERAL DATA BASES
Hardware/Software: TIS resides on a VAX/DEC 5800 ethernet server, which is

accessible by IBM-compatible or Macintosh PC,
minicomputer, or mainframe. A "client piece" of the
"Topic" software is required.
Contact: Claire Ross

DOE/Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
P.O. Box 1625-3970
Idaho Falls, ID 83415
(208) 526 -0614
FAX (208) 526-6802
C-27
? C.12 HAZARDOUS WASTE SUPERFUND COLLECTION DATA BASE

Washington, DC
Description of Services: The Hazardous Waste Superfund Collection is a special

collection within the EPA Headquarters Library on the
subject of hazardous waste. The Hazardous Waste
Superfund Collection Data Base (HWSFD) is a data base
containing bibliographic references and abstracts for the
documents in the collection. The data base is designed to
better meet the information needs of EPA staff by making
key documents and services more readily available through
the EPA library network. The system provides:
· A unified resource of major hazardous waste

reports, books and journals available through the
EPA library network.
· Current information to assist EPA staff in making

timely and effective policy and regulatory
decisions.
· Assistance in the transfer of hazardous waste

information from the EPA to the states as part of
the Agency's technology transfer effort.
Data: Continually growing, the HWSFD contains abstracts of

books, legislation, regulations, reports from federal
agencies, EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER) policy and guidance directives, and
EPA reports from selected program offices.
Entries can be searched by the following categories:
· Keywords (from a thesaurus)

· Title
· EPA program office
· Date
· Author
· Abstract
The HWSFD is updated quarterly. Selected documents

from the collection are distributed to the 10 EPA regional
libraries as well as to EPA laboratory libraries in Ada, OK;
C-28
FEDERAL DATA BASES
Cincinnati, OH; Edison, NJ; Las Vegas, NV; Research

Triangle Park, NC; and the National Enforcement
Investigations Center in Denver, CO.
Access: The Data Base is available to the public through two

sources: the EPA Online Library System (OLS), which
resides on the EPA mainframe (online version), and files
that can be downloaded from EPA's CLU-IN Bulletin
Board (PC version). To access either version, a user will
need a computer, modem, and communications software.
The number to dial into the online version is (919) 549 -
0720. The communications parameters are as follows:
· 300-9600 baud
· 7 data bits
· 1 stop bit
· Even parity
At the first prompt, type IBMPSI.

At the second prompt, choose the option for OLS.
To log off, type QUIT and follow the prompts.
For user support, call (800) 334-2405. For an OLS user

manual, call (919) 541-2777.
Files to assemble the PC version can be downloaded from

the CLU-IN Bulletin Board by dialing 301-589-8366.
Parameters are:
· 8 data bits
· 1 stop bit
· No parity
· 1200-9600 Baud
Hardware/Software: Both versions can be accessed with a PC, modem, and

communications software.
Contact: Felice Sacks

Hazardous Waste Superfund Collection
EPA Headquarters Library
Mail Code: PM-211A
401 M St., SW
(202) 260 -3021
CLU-IN Help Line
C-29
(301) 589 -8368
C-30
FEDERAL DATA BASES
? C.13 INSTALLATION RESTORATION DATA MANAGEMENT INFORMATION

SYSTEM
Sponsoring Agency: U.S. Army Environmental Center (USAEC)

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD
Description of Services: The Installation Restoration Data Management Information

System (IRDMIS) exists to support the technical and
managerial requirements of the Army's Installation
Restoration Program (IRP) and other environmental efforts
of the USAEC (formerly the U.S. Toxic and Hazardous
Materials Agency). Since 1975, more than 5 million
technical data records have been collected and stored in the
IRDMIS. These records represent information collected
from over 100 Army installations.
Data: The records contain information on:
· Geodetic map coordinates of all sampling efforts.
· Digitized map information pertaining to

installation boundaries and other key features.
· Geodetic elevations.
· Field drilling procedures and sampling.
· Water table measurements.
· Chemical sampling and analytical results.
· Radiological sampling and results.
· Meteorological information.
· Standards for specific analytes.
· Method descriptions of chemical, geotechnical, and

radiological sampling and analysis procedures.
Data consist primarily of analytical results from chemical,

geotechnical, and radiological sampling, coupled with
sampling location information. A printed Data Dictionary
specifying data base filed definitions, acceptable entries,
and file formats is available upon request.
C-31
The IRDMIS data are stored in a relational data base with

menus for accessing data and producing reports. Graphical
display capabilities are provided so that users can
interactively view and manipulate data in two and three
dimensions.
Access: The system is available to USAEC project managers and

contractors actively submitting data into IRDMIS.
Contractors are restricted to data concerning their
respective activities only. Access by other federal and state
agencies are handled on a case by case basis.
Hardware/Software: Users are provided with DOS-based software to access the

data base.
Contact: Jim Wood

USAEC
Attn: CETHA-Room I
Building E, 4462T
(410) 671 -1655
C-32
FEDERAL DATA BASES
? C.14 NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICES (NTIS)

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA BASE
Sponsoring Agency: U.S. Department of Commerce

Springfield, VA
Description of Services: The National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

Bibliographic Data Base is a self-supporting agency of the
U.S. Department of Commerce and is the largest single
source for public access to federally produced information.
NTIS is the federal agencycharged with collecting and
distributing federal scientific, technical, and engineering
information. The NTIS collection covers current
technologies, business and management studies, foreign
and domestic trade, environment and energy, health, social
sciences, general statistics, and hundreds of other areas.
When government agencies and their contractors forward
reports and other items to NTIS, these items are entered
into the NTIS computerized bibliographic data base and
become part of the NTIS archive.
Data: The NTIS bibliographic data base contains data about

federally generated machine-readable data files and
software, U.S. government inventions available for
licensing, reports on new technologies developed by federal
agencies, federally generated translations, and reports
prepared by non-U.S. government agencies. An increasing
proportion of the data base consists of unpublished
material originating outside the United States. Most NTIS
records include an abstract.
Access: The NTIS data base is available to the public through a

number of commercial vendors including:
· BRS (800-345-4277)
· CISTI (613-993-1210/in Canada)
· DIALOG (800-334-2564)
· ORBIT (800-456-7248, 703-442-0900/in Virginia)
· STN International (800-848-6533)
Some of these systems also allow ordering printed copies of

documents from the NTIS collection. NTIS also allows
ordering of documents from the sales desk (703 -487-4650).
The data base is also available on CD-ROMs from a

number of vendors.
C-33
Hardware/Software: The hardware and software required to access NTIS online

depend upon the individual system used, but generally
include a computer, modem, and communications software
for dial-in access and a computer and CD-ROM drive for a
CD-ROM version.
Contact: National Technical Information Service

(703) 487 -4650
FAX (703) 321-8547
C-34
FEDERAL DATA BASES
? C.15 NEW TECHNOLOGY FROM DOE (NTD)

Office of Science and Technical Information
Oak Ridge, TN
Description of Services: New Technology from DOE (NTD) contains brief

descriptions of DOE research results that have potential for
commercialization by U.S. industries. This data base is the
centralized source of online informatio n on DOE technical
innovations and advancements.
Data: Each NTD record includes a technology description, patent

status, secondary or spinoff applications, literature
citations, DOE laboratory and sponsoring information,
subject descriptors, and a contact for further information.
The NTD currently contains 1,200 records from 1986 to
the present. It is anticipated that older records dating from
1983 will be added to the data base.
Access: The data base is available to DOE and its contractors

through the Integrated Technical Information System
(ITIS). Public access is provided through the National
Technical Information Service's Technology Transfer
Program.
Hardware/Software: DOE and its contractors can access the ITIS using a
computer, modem, and commun ications software capable
of VT-100 emulation.
Contact: Integrated Technical Information System

DOE/Office of Science and Technical Information
P.O. Box 62
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
(615) 576 -1222
Technology Transfer Program

National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
(703) 487 -4738
C-35
? C.16 PROSPECTIVE TECHNOLOGY (PROTECH) AND THE TECHNOLOGY

CATALOGUE

Management
Washington, DC
Description of Services: Computer-based communication tool to describe innovative

environmental cleanup technologies. ProTech can provide
management support to IDCs and DOE Office of
Technology Development personnel as well as minimize the
time and effort that field personnel spend providing
information on their technologies. It will provide more
detailed technical cost performance data on deployable
technologies advanced by the Office of Technology
Development to its customers, DOE's Offices of Waste
Management (EM-30) and Environmental Restoration
(EM-40) and their contractors. The Technology Catalogue
will take and use the data produced by Protech and be
distributed to personnel throughout DOE and its laboratory
system.
Data: ProTech is a prototype system that has been approved to

become a national system to describe innovative
environmental cleanup technologies. The user is presented
with a schematic that divides all technologies into five
categories: drilling, characterization and monitoring,
extraction, above-ground treatment, and in-ground
destruction and/or immobilization of contaminants. Each
of these categories are divided into "ID technologies" and
"baseline technologies." The user can click on any
technology and pull up a fact sheet describing the need and
objective of the technology and a graphic describing the
components of the technology.
Hardware/Software: Macintosh computer platform.
Access: Still in prototype. System is expected to be ready late May

or June of 1993.
C-36
FEDERAL DATA BASES
Contact: ProTech:
David Biancosino (DOE)

(301) 903 -7961
Gretchen McCabe (Battelle Seattle Research Center)

(206) 528 -3338
Technology Catalogue:
Joe Paladino (DOE-HQ)

(301) 903 -7449
Nancy Prindle (Sandia National Labs)

(505) 844 -7227
C-37
? C.17 RECORDS OF DECISION SYSTEM (RODS)

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Washington, DC
Description of Services: The Records of Decision System (RODS) is an online data

base containing the full-text of the Superfund Records of
Decision for National Priorities List sites nationwide. The
Record of Decision contains information about the
remediation technology to be use d for a site, including the
justification for why the technology was chosen. The
RODS system can be used to:
· Search for a Record of Decision for a particular

Superfund site
· Search for Records of Decision for sites with

similar conditions, wastes, or media
· Search for Records of Decision for sites that use a

particular technology
Data: Each record in the RODS system contains the text of a

single Record of Decision (ROD). A Record of Decision
describes EPA's selection of the cleanup method to be used
at a site. The ROD usually includes a history of the site,
description of alternatives for cleaning up the site, rationale
for the chosen cleanup method, cost estimates, and a
responsiveness summary of the public comments received.
The system can be searched by region, state, site name,
ROD date, ROD ID number, media, contaminant, selected
keywords, remedy, abstract, and full text.
Access: Direct access to RODS is available only to EPA staff

members and firms that have relevant EPA contracts.
Contact the RODS Help Line for an account. For those
who are not eligible for direct access, searches will be done
by an information specialist at the RODS Help Line.
Hardware/Software: RODS is located on EPA's mainframe computer in

Research Triangle Park, NC, and is accessible through a
computer, modem, and communications software. EPA
employees may have direct access to the RODS system
through their LANs or through access to the EPA data
C-38
FEDERAL DATA BASES
switch.
C-39
Contact: Jalania Ellis

EPA/OERR
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 5201G
(703) 603 -8889
C-40
FEDERAL DATA BASES
? C.18 REOPT: ELECTRONIC ENCYCLOPEDIA OF REMEDIAL ACTION

OPTIONS
Sponsoring Agency: Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories

Richland, WA
Description of Services: ReOpt is a user-friendly personal computer program that

provides information about remedial action technologies.
The information contained in ReOpt is derived from a
number of sources, including DOE, EPA, and industry
sources. ReOpt provides descriptions of approximately 90
technologies, breaking the information into useable
categories of information, including application and
regulatory information for nearly 850 contaminants.
ReOpt was developed for DOE as part of the Remedial
Action Assessment System (RAAS) project.
Data: For each technology, ReOpt contains information for the

following categories:
· Flow diagram
· Description
· Engineering or design parameters.
· Contaminant applicability.
· Data Requirements.
· Associated technologies.
· Technical constraints for site, medium, and

contaminant.
· Regulatory Constraints for site, medium, and

contaminant.
· References.
· Previous/Applications.
ReOpt allows users to search by media, contaminant, and

the way the functional manner in which the user wants to
restore the site (such as, in situ treatment) to focus the
analysis of those technologies potentially applicable to the
C-41
scenario.
Access: The system is available on diskette for federal government

users and their contractors under a Limited Government
License from the Energy Science and Technology Software
Center (ESTSC). ReOpt is available for purchase for non-
federal and commercial use through Sierra Geophysics
(Halliburton Industries) located in Kirkland, WA, 1-800-
826-7644, ext. 120.
Hardware/Software: ReOpt is available to run on IBM-PC and compatibles in a

WINDOWS? environment and Macintosh II (or greater)
computer systems. The system requires a high-resolution
color monitor (supporting 640 x 480 pixels); a mouse; a
3.5" high density disk drive; at least 5MB of RAM; and
approximately 12MB hard disk storage space. The system
contains an embedded data base software product, OMBIS
SEVEN? by Blyth Corporation and requires that a
licensing fee be paid to obtain this license and the
installation materials.
Contact: Energy Science and Technology Software Center

(615) 576 -2606
Janet Bryant
Battelle - Pacific Northwest Laboratory
P.O. Box 999, MSIN: K7-94
Richland, WA 99352
RAAS/ReOpt FAX Hotline: (509) 375-6417
C-42
FEDERAL DATA BASES
? C.19 RESEARCH IN PROGRESS (RIP) DATA BASE

Office of Scientific and Technical Information
Oak Ridge, TN
Description of Services: The Research in Progress (RIP) Data Base contains

administrative and technical information about all
unclassified current and recently completed research
projects performed funded by DOE. This file bridges the
information gap that occurs between initiation and
completion of a research project. It serves as a technology
transfer medium, a management information system for use
in program planning and implementation, a system for
current awareness and networking for the scientific
community, and a resource base for publishing summaries
of research in specific programmatic areas.
Data: RIP contains information on approximately 23,000 DOE

research efforts. Records are maintained for five years
after project completion. All information on file is updated
annually or when significant changes occur. With each
annual data base update, researchers may change the
information to reflect current work.
Access: RIP is available to DOE and its contractors through the

DOE Integrated Technical Information System. It is
available to the public as part of the Federal Research in
Progress (FEDRIP) data base on the DIALOG information
system (a commercial system) for a fee. Some records and
data elements appropriate only for DOE use are omitted
from the FEDRIP version.
Hardware/Software: RIP is accessible by any IBM or compatible personal

computer or Macintosh equipped with a modem and
communications software capable of VT-100 emulation.
FEDRIP is available via dial-up to the DIALOG system
with a computer, modem, and communications software.
C-43
Contact: Kelly J. Dwyer

DOE/Office of Scientific and Technical Information
P.O. Box 62
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
(615) 576 -9374
DIALOG Information Services

(800) 334 -2564
C-44
FEDERAL DATA BASES
? C.20 RREL TREATABILITY DATA BASE

Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH
Description of Services: The RREL Treatability Data Base provides a thorough

review of the effectiveness of proven treatment technologies
in the removal or destruction of chemicals from media such
as municipal and industrial wastewater, drinking water,
groundwater, soil, debris, sludge, and sediment. The data
base includes only those technologies that are commercially
available. The data base is distributed to federal, state, and
local governments; foreign government s; academia;
industry; and many other groups.
Data: Version 5.0 of the data base was released in May 1993 and
contains 1207 compounds and 13,500 treatability data sets.
The data base is organized by chemical. For each
compound, the data base includes:
· Physical/chemical properties.
· Freundlich isotherm data.
· Aqueous and solid treatability data.
· Scale (bench, pilot, or field).
· Average concentration of contaminants in influent

and effluent.
· Average percentage of removal.
· Reference citations with a reference abstract.
Access: The data base is available for free upon request. To obtain
a diskette copy of the system, send a written request or fax
to the contact listed below. Please indicate the disk size (5
¼ HD or 3 ½ HD) you prefer. The system is also
searchable online through ATTIC (see page C-11) and is
downloadable from CLU-IN (see page D-14).
C-45
Hardware/Software: The Data Base is a stand-alone menu driven system that

runs on an IBM PC or compatible using DOS 2.0 to 6.0.
The system requires 7 megabytes of hard disk space and
640 kilobytes or RAM.
Contact: Glenn M. Shaul

EPA/RREL
26 West Martin Luther King Dr.
(513) 569 -7408
FAX (513) 569-7787
C-46
FEDERAL DATA BASES
? C.21 SOIL TRANSPORT AND FATE DATA BASE AND MODEL

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Ada, OK
Description of Services: The Soil Transport and Fate (STF) Data Base Version 2.0
presents quantitative and qualitative information
concerning the behavior of organic and inorganic chemicals
in soil. The STF Data Base provides users with recent
information on chemical properties, toxicity,
transformation, and bioaccumulation for hundreds of
chemical compounds. It can be used by environmental
managers, scientists, and regulators working on problems
related to vadose zone contamination and remediation.
Data: The software consists of three major components: the STF

Data Base; the Vadose Zone Interactive Processes (VIP)
Model and Regulatory and Investigative Treatment Zone
(RITZ) Model; and the VIP and RITZ model editors. The
data base includes approximately 400 chemicals identified
by chemical name (as referenced in 40CFR Part 261), the
Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) number, and the
common chemical name. The VIP and RITZ models are
one-dimensional models that are used in predicting the fate
and transport of hazardous organic constituents in the
vadose zone. The VIP and RITZ model editors aid in the
creation of input files for the respective models and are
designed to interface with the STF Data Base.
Access: Users can obtain a copy of the system and user manual by
sending six pre-formatted diskettes (360K minimum) to the
address listed below.
Hardware/Software: The hardware/software requirements for the STF Data

Base and Model Management System are:
· IBM-compatible computer
· 640K RAM
· Math coprocessor (for VIP and RITZ models only)
· 12.5 megabytes of hard disk space
C-47
Contact: David S. Burden

Center for Subsurface Modeling Support
EPA/RSKERL
Environmental Research Laboratory
P.O. Box 1198
Ada, OK 74820
(405) 332 -8800
C-48
FEDERAL DATA BASES
? C.22 TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION SYSTEM SUPPORT (TISS)
Sponsoring Agency: U. S. Department of Energy

Management
Washington, DC
Description of Services: This system supports DOE in the development of new

environmental technologies by providing a central focus for
information exchange between DOE and industry, other
federal agencies (OFAs), and universities.
Data: Includes DOE Environmental Technologies, DOE

Technology Needs, DOE Documents, DOE Procurement
Activities, Vendor Information, Requestor Data Base, and
DOE Points of Contact.
Access: Call DOE-HQ central point of contact at Environmental

Technology Information Service to provide information or
request information. DOE transmits the request to Oak
Ridge Information Center, which provides the requested
information. An information packet is prepared and mailed
in response to the request.
Hardware/Software: NextStep system using object oriented, multitasking

knowledge base on a 486 platform.
Contact: Richard Machanoff

Project Manager, HAZWRAP
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.
(615) 435-3173
DOE Environmental Technology Information Service

(800) 845 -2096
C-49
? C.23 WASTE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM

Oak Ridge, TN
Description of Services: The Waste Management Information System (WMIS) is a

dynamic system currently being developed as a
management and planning tool. The system provides an
accurate and complete resource for information pertaining
to waste streams and treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities throughout t he DOE complex. WMIS in its
present form is populated with mixed, hazardous, and
radioactive waste data from the various DOE sites. As
DOE's primary waste management information system,
WMIS supports a variety of DOE programs as well as
customizing reports to meet the needs of specific projects.
During FY 1993, WMIS was migrated from a VAX 8700
mainframe to a microcomputer-based environment.
Data: The data exists in two major areas:
· Treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD)

Capabilities— a compilation of DOE facilities,
both existing and planned, for the treatment,
storage, and disposal of waste. Storage
capabilities, capacities, and information on types
of acceptable feedstocks are included. Treatment
and disposal methodologies are presented with
operating parameters and restrictions.
· Waste Profiles— data on the various wastestreams

that have been identified for waste management
activities. Data includes generation rates,
quantities, characterization, point of contact
information, and applicable waste management
options.
The data in the two areas presented above are being merged
through an artificial link that enables the user to determine
which waste profiles or wastestreams are managed at the
facilities listed in the TSD Capabilities.
Access: Direct access to the system is available at DOE

Headquarters.
C-50
FEDERAL DATA BASES
Hardware/Software: The data base resides on a Novel local area network and
applications are written in FoxPro.
Contact: Lise Wachter, HAZWRAP

Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.
P.O. Box 2003, MS-7606
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-7606
(615) 435 -3281
C-51
C-52
? C.24 U.S. ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL HOTLINE
Primary Contact: Commander
Address: U.S. Army Environmental Center

Attn: SFIM-AEC-ECS (Environmental Hotline)
Telephone: Continental U.S.: 1-800-USA-EVHL

Outside the Continental U.S.: DSN 584-1699
Hours: 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.

Monday - Friday
Description of Services: The Army's Environmental Hotline is a comprehensive

source for environmental information, including hazardous
waste management regulations, forms, training
requirements, or any other environmental concerns or
questions.
Primary Focus: The hotline is available to all Department of Army

employees worldwide, soldier or civilian, active or reserve
component.
C-53
? C.25 CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH INFORMATION (CERI)
Primary Contact: Dorothy Williams
Address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Center for Environmental Research Information (CERI)
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Telephone: (513) 569 -7562 (CML)

(8) 684-7562 (FTS)
Fax: (513) 569 -7566 (CML)

(8) 684-7566 (FTS)
Hours: 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.

Monday - Friday
Description of Services: CERI is the focal point for the exchange of scientific and
technical environmental information produced by EPA. It
supports the activities of the Office of Research and
Development (ORD), its laboratories, and associated
programs nationwide.
Primary Focus: CERI's technical information components are responsible

for the production and distribution of scientific and
technical reports, and for responding to requests for
publications. CERI publishes brochures, capsule and
summary reports, handbooks, newsletters, project reports,
and manuals. Services are provided to EPA employees;
federal, state, and local agencies; businesses; and the
public.
C-54
? C.26 DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER (DTIC)
Primary Contact:
Address: Defense Technical Information Center

Building 5, Cameron Station
Alexandria, VA 22304-6145
Telephone: (703) 274 -3848

DSN 284-3848
1-800-225-3842
Fax: (703) 274 -9274
Description of Services: The Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) is the

central point within the Department of Defense (DOD) for
acquiring, storing, retrieving, and disseminating scientific
and technical information (STI) to support the management
and conduct of DOD research, development, engineering,
acquisition planning, and studies programs. DTIC's
governing regulation is DOD Directive 3200.12, DOD
Scientific and Technical Information Program. To carry
out its mission, DTIC pursues a program for applying
advanced techniques and technologies to DOD STI systems
to improve services and information transfer effectiveness.
Primary Focus: DTIC's collection includes topics normally associated with

Defense research, such as aeronautics, missile technology,
space technology, navigation, and nuclear science.
Because DOD's interests are widespread, such subjects as
biology, chemistry, energy, environmental sciences,
oceanography, computer sciences, sociology, and human
factors engineering are also included. DTIC services are
available to DOD and its contractors and to other U.S.
Government agencies and their contractors.
C-55
? C.27 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE (GPO)
Primary Contact: Superintendent of Documents
Address: U.S. Government Printing Office

Telephone: (202) 783 -3238 (CML)
Fax: (202) 275 -0019 (CML) (Subscriptions Only)

(202) 275 -2529 (Inquiries/Orders)
Telex: (710) 822 -9413 (International)
Hours: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.

Monday - Friday
Description of Services: The mission of the GPO is the production or procurement

of printing for Congress and the agencies of the federal
government. GPO also disseminates information to the
public through the Superintendent of Documents
publications, sales, and depository library programs.
Through its documents program, GPO disseminates what is
possibly the largest volume of informational literature in
the world. The Superintendent of Documents offers
approximately 17,000 titles to the public at any given time.
These are sold principally by mail order and through a
series of bookstores across the country.
Primary Focus: GPO's primary mandate is to facilitate the printing of

Congressional work in an efficient and cost-effective
manner. The Congressional Record and Federal Register
are printed daily. Although often referred to as the
"Nation's largest publisher," the Superintendent of
Documents neither initiates nor exercises control over the
publications GPO sells. Virtually all government
publications are issued by Congress and the various
government agencies. GPO prints or procures the printing
of these publications and distributes them through its sales
and/or depository programs.
C-56
? C.28 NATIONAL CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLICATIONS AND

INFORMATION
Primary Contact: National Center for Environmental Publications and

Information (NCEPI)
Address: 11029 Kenwood Road, Building 5

Fax: (513) 891 -6685
Description of Services: The National Center for Environmental Publications and

Information is the primary national large volume
publications distribution clearinghouse for the EPA. More
than 4,000 different Agency documents and publications
are contained in NCEPI and more than 800,000 documents
are distributed monthly to domestic and international
destinations.
Primary Focus: The Center for Environmental Research Information

(CERI), is NCEPI's largest client. They support the
activities of the Office of Research and Development
(ORD), its laboratories, and associated programs
nationwide. CERI takes publication requests directly
through the NCEPI system (an automated inventory and
ordering system), which draws down from their inventory
and provides a mailing slip through NCEPI which prints
that evening. The publication/s are packaged and shipped
the next day. CERI also accepts phone, written, and fax
requests which are collected and forwarded to NCEPI for
processing.
C-57
? C.29 NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE (NTIS)
Primary Contact:
Address: National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

Telephone: (800) 336 -4700

(703) 487 -4650 (CML)
(703) 487 -4639 (TDD)
Fax: (703) 321 -8547 (CML)
Telex: 89-9405 (Domestic)

64617 (International)
Hours: 8:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m.

Monday - Friday
Description of Services: NTIS, an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, is

the central source for the public sale of U.S. and foreign
government-sponsored research, development, engineering,
and business reports. NTIS manages the Federal
Computer Products Center, which provides access to
software datafiles and data bases by federalagencies.
Primary Focus: Technical and nontechnical information from government

agencies with a heavy emphasis on the publications of the
Departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health and
Human Services, NASA, and the Environmental Protection
Agency. NTIS provides archival service for all of its
publications. The primary audience of NTIS is the
business and scientific community. Services are also
available to the general public, libraries, and educational
and environmental groups.
C-58
? C.30 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (ORD) BULLETIN

BOARD
Primary Contact: Denis Lussier

Environmental Control Systems Staff
Telephone: (513) 569 -7354 (CML)

(8) 684-7354 (FTS)
Fax: (513) 569 -7566 (CML)

(8) 684-7566 (FTS)
Description of Services: The Bulletin Board System (BBS) is designed to facilitate

the exchange of technical information and ORD products.
The title, publication number, an abstract, author,
performing organization, and the availability of the product
are included in the Bulletin Board.
Primary Focus: The BBS offers an electronic message system, brief

bulletins with information about ORD products and
activities, and an online data base for identifying ORD
publications. All EPA employees, other federal agencies,
states, universities, industry, and the public may access the
system.
C-59
? C.31 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ELECTRONIC

BULLETIN
BOARD SYSTEM (ORD BBS)
Primary Contact: Jose Peres

(513) 569 -7272 (CML)
(8) 684-7272 (FTS)

Center for Environmental Research Information
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Telephone: (513) 569-7610 (CML)

(8) 684-7610 (FTS)
Fax: (513) 569 -7566 (CML)
Hours: 24-hour-a-day access to ORD BBS
Description of Services: The ORD BBS is an online, text-searchable data base of

every ORD publication produced since 1976 (more than
15,000 citations). Each citation includes title, authors,
abstract, ordering information, and much more. The ORD
BBS also offers such features as messages, bulletins of
new information, public domain files, and online
registration for ORD meetings, and currently has five
specialty areas, such as water, regional operations, expert
systems, biotechnology, and quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC).
Primary Focus: The ORD BBS is open to everyone with immediate access
to its communication and technology transfer features.
C-60
? C.32 PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTER (PIC)
Primary Contact: Kevin Rosseel, Director

Alison Cook, Manager

Public Information Center, PM-211B
401 M Street, SW
Telephone: (202) 475 -7751 (CML)

(8) 475-7751 (FTS)
Fax: (202) 382 -7883 (CML)

(8) 382-7883 (FTS)
Hours: 8:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m.

Monday - Friday
Description of Services: PIC is the primary point of communication between EPA

and the public, and responds to more than 5,000 requests
per month on all major environmental topics. In addition,
PIC acts as a referral center, directing requests for
technical information to appropriate offices, both inside
and outside EPA.
Primary Focus: Examples of documents available at PIC are brochures on

EPA programs, factsheets and pamphlets on environmental
topics, consumer guides, educational materials, and other
nontechnical consumer-oriented information about the
environment and EPA.
C-61
? C.33 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE DIRECTORY

ORD Publications Unit
Telephone: (513) 569 -7369 (CML)

(8) 684-7369 (FTS)
Fax: (513) 569 -7566 (CML)

(8) 684-7566 (FTS)
Hours: 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.

Monday - Friday
Description of Services: The programs, areas of expertise, and primary contacts in

each of the major ORD operations are conveyed in this
directory.
Primary Focus: The information is provided to improve communication and

technology transfer and is useful for the environmental
community, other federal agencies, and individuals who
need to locate specific programs within ORD.
C-62
? C.34 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER NEWSLETTER

ORD Publications Unit
Telephone: (513) 569 -7369 (CML)

(8) 684-7369 (FTS)
Fax: (513) 569 -7566 (CML)

(8) 684-7566 (FTS)
Description of Services: Published semiannually, this document lists titles and

descriptions of printed publications that are available from
CERI.
Primary Focus: The newsletter provides interested parties with access to

the broad range of currently available technology transfer
documents produced by the Office of Research and
Development (ORD).
C-63
Technology cost or performance is affected by waste characteristics and operating

conditions. Because the relevant factors are technology-specific, the most important
parameters are identified for each technology. These parameters should be
documented, if possible, during report preparation and can serve as guidance for
determining a field sampling program during site remediation.
The selected parameters for matrix characteristics and technology operation are
shown in Tables D-1 and D-2, respectively. These parameters were developed based
on information in scientific literatu re and from technical judgment. These
parameters can serve as a "base level" of data that is desirable to evaluate the
performance of a technology across sites or from one application to the next. The
matrix characteristics can be valuable in assessing the applicability of results from
the completed project to other potential sites.
C-64
TABLE D-1
a
MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING TREATMENT COST AND PERFORMANCE
In Situ Soil Remediation Ex Situ Soil Remediation Groundwater Remediation
Fluid Slurry
Matrix Characteristics Bio- Cycling Land Phase Soil Thermal In Situ Pump/
venting Biorem. Flush. SVE Treat. Compost Biorem. Wash Desorp. Biorem. Sparging Treat
Clay Content ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Cation Exchange ? ?b
Capacity
Hydraulic Conductivity ? ? ? ? ?
Moisture Content c c ? ? c c c ? ?
Nutrient Content c c c c c
Oxygen Content c c c c c c
Particle Size Distribution ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?d ? ? ?
Permeability c c ? ? c c ? ? ?
pH ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Porosity ? ? ? ? ?
Biological Inhibitors ? ? ? ? ? ?
Redox Potential c c c
Respirometry Test ? ? ? ? ? ?
Temperature c c c c c c
Total Organic Carbon ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Oil and Grease or Total ? ? ? ? ?

Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
Miscellaneous e e
a
The measurement and reporting of these parameters are desirable to fully characterize an untreated matrix. These parameters were selected based
on information in the technical literature andnobest technical judgment because they are considered to be the major matrix characteristics that affect
cost or treatment performance. The types and properties of contaminants are important for all treatment technologies, and are described separately.
Geologic and hydrogeologic assessments are important for all in situ treatment technologies and are described separately.
b
Cation exchange capacity is an important matrix characteristic for soil washing of metal
-containing wastes.
c
Moisture content, nutrient content, oxygen content, permeability, and redox potential are important parameters for biotreatment technologies and are
accounted for in the table of operating parameters.
d
The particle size distribution-contaminant relationship is an important matrix
characteristic for soil washing.
e
Miscellaneous matrix characteristics include field capacity for land treatment; bulk density and lower explosive limit for thermal desorption.
C-2
FEDERAL DATA BASES AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES
TABLE D-2
a
OPERATING PARAMETERS AFFECTING TREATMENT COST AND PERFORMANCE
In Situ Soil Remediation Ex Situ Soil Remediation Groundwater Remediation

Operating Fluid Slurry
Parameters Bio- Cycling Land Phase Soil Thermal In Situ Pump/
venting Biorem. Flush. SVE Treat. Compost Biorem. Washing Desorp. Biorem. Sparging Treat
Air Flow Rate ? ? ? ? ? ?
Biomass ? ? ? ? ? ?
Concentration/
Microorganism
Content
Mixing b b ?
Rate/Frequency
Moisture Content ? ? ? ? ?c ?c ?
Nutrient Demand ? ? ? ? ? ?
and Supply Rate
Operating ? ? ?
Pressure/Vacuum
Oxygen or Other ?d ? ? ? ? ?
Electron Acceptor
Concentration and
Supply Rate
pH ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Permeability ? ? ? ?
Pumping Rate ? ?
Redox Potential ? ? ?
Residence Time ? ? ? ?
System ? ? ?
Throughput
Temperature ? ? ? ? ? ?
Washing/Flushing ? ?
Solution
Components/Addi
tives and Dosage
a
The measurement and reporting of these parameters are desirable to fully evaluate treatment
the operation. These parameters were selected based
on information in the technical literature and on best technical judgment because they are considered to be the major factors that affect treatment cost
or performance.
b
Mixing rate/frequency for land treatment refer
s to tilling and for composting refers to turning.
c
Solid to liquid ratio is an important parameter for evaluating slurry phase bioremediation and soil washing.
d
Oxygen utilization or carbon dioxide production is an important parameter for evaluating bioventing.
soil
C-3
Appendix E
DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE DOCUMENTS
A list of U.S. Government reports documenting innovative and conventional site

remediation technologies that are incorporated into this compendium guide is
presented in Table E-1. These documents are described in greater detail below.
TABLE E-1
U.S. GOVERNMENT REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY REPORTS
U.S. Army Environmental Center (USAEC) Installation Restoration and Hazardous Waste Control
Technologies, Third Edition, November 1992
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative

Site Remediation Technologies, Third Edition, August
1993.
Accessing Federal Data Bases for Contaminated Site

Clean-Up Technologies, Third Edition, September
1993.
Federal Publications on Alternative and Innovative

Treatment Technologies for Corrective Action and Site
Remediation, Third Edition, September 1993.
EPA The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation

(SITE) Program: Technology Profiles, Sixth Edition,
November 1993
DOE Technology Catalogue, First Edition, February 1994
USAF, EPA Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and

Reference Guide, Version I, July 1993
USAF Remedial Technology Design, Performance, and Cost

Study, July 1992
California Base Closure Environmental Treatment Technologies Applications Matrix for Base
Committee Closure Activities, November 1993
EPA/U.S. Navy EPA/Navy CERCLA Remedial Action Technology

Guide, November 1993
? E.1 INSTALLATION RESTORATION AND HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTROL

TECHNOLOGIES (THIRD EDITION, NOVEMBER 1992)
The purpose of this guide is to provide a reference to pertinent and current treatment
technolo gies for public and private sector program managers dealing with
installation restoration and hazardous waste control technologies. The third edition
MK01\RPT:02281012.009 \compgde.ape 10/31/00
E-1
of this handbook was published in 1992 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Toxic and
Hazardous Materials Agency, Report CETHA-TS-CR-92053, 1992).
The information contained in this handbook was obtained through personal

interviews with Army, Navy, Air Force, and EPA personnel directly involved in
research, development, and implementation of new and effective metho ds to
accomplish the following: restoration of contaminated soil, groundwater, and
structures; and minimization of the generation of hazardous waste materials.
The summaries of specific technologies include:
· The purpose of developing the technology.
· In what cases the technology is applicable.
· A description of the technology.
· Advantages and limitations of the technology with respect to environmental

impact.
· Costs associated with implementing the technology.
· Availability of equipment required.
· The current status of development.
· References, including reports, journal articles, and patents; photographs and

drawings, if available; and points of contact for additional technical
information.
? E.2 SYNOPSES OF FEDERAL DEMONSTRATIONS OF INNOVATIVE SITE

REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES (THIRD EDITION, AUGUST 1993)
This publication (EPA/542/B-93/009) was prepared under the auspices of the
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR). This organization was
created to establish a process for applied hazardous waste site remediation
technology information exchange, to consider cooperative efforts of mutual interest,
and to develop strategies and analyze remedial problems that would benefit from the
application of innovative technologies.
This collection of abstracts describes field demonstrations of innovative

technologies to treat hazardous waste at contaminated sites. The collection is
intended to be an information resource for hazardous waste site project managers
who are assessing the availability and viability of innovative technologies for
treating contaminated groundwater, soils, and sludge. It also is intended to assist
government agencies in coordinating ongoing hazardous waste remediation
technology research initiatives, particularly those sponsored by EPA, DOD, DOE,
and DOI. Innovative technologies, for the purposes of this compendium, were
defined as those for which detailed performance and cost data were not readily
available.
E-2
The demonstrations discussed in this document were all sponsored by EPA, DOD,
DOE, and DOI. In total, 112 demonstrations in six different technology categories
are described. These demonstrations involve the use of innovative technologies to
treat soil and groundwater. Only federally sponsored studies and demonstrations
that have tested innovative remedial technologies with site -specific wastes under
realistic conditions as a part of large pilot- or full-scale field demonstrations are
included.
? E.3 ACCESSING FEDERAL DATA BASES FOR CONTAMINATED SITE

CLEAN-UP TECHNOLOGIES
The FRTR developed this publication (EPA/542/B-93/008) to provide information
on accessing federal data bases that contain data on innovative remediation
technologies. The profiles contained in this edition were identified through a review
of reports, articles, and publications by FRTR member agencies and telephone
interviews with data base experts. Roundtable members include EPA, DOD, DOE,
and DOI. In addition, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
participates in FRTR meetings.
This document is a reference tool that provides information on those systems

maintaining data on remedial technologies. It may be used by project managers as a
pointer to repositories of technical information, or as a source of contacts that may
be useful to future system design. Each data base profile contains information on
data elements, system uses, hardware and software requirements, and access. The
profiles also contain contacts for each system. A matrix showing system
characteristics of the data bases and a table summarizing information contained in
the data base profiles are provided.
? E.4 FEDERAL PUBLICATIONS ON ALTERNATIVE AND INNOVATIVE

TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION AND SITE
REMEDIATION
The FRTR has prepared this bibliography (EPA/542/B-93/007) to publicize the
availability of federal documents pertaining to innovative and alternative
technologies to treat hazardous wastes. This updated edition contains references for
documents and reports from EPA, the U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy, the USAF, DOE,
and DOI. The FRTR obtained this reference information from a variety of sources:
• Federal agency report, project, and publication lists from EPA, the Naval
Civil Engineering Laboratory, USAEC, the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, the USAF Engineering and Sciences Center, DOE, and
DOI.
• The National Technical Information Service (NTIS) and other data bases.
This bibliography addresses technologies that provide for the treatment of

hazardous wastes; therefore, it does not contain information or references for
containment or other nontreatment strategies, such as landfilling and capping. This
bibliography emphasizes innovative technologies for which detailed cost and
performance data are not readily available. Information on more conventional
E-3
treatment technologies, such as incineration and solidification, is not included.
In addition to improving access to information on innovative technologies, FRTR

hopes this bibliography will assist in the coordination of ongoing research initiatives
and increase the development and implementation of these innovative technologies
for corrective action and site remediation. This bibliography is intended as a
starting point in pursuit of information on innovative alternative hazardous waste
treatment technologies and has been included, whole, in Section 5, References.
? E.5 THE SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION

(SITE) PROGRAM: TECHNOLOGY PROFILES (SIXTH EDITION,
NOVEMBER 1993)
The SITE Program evaluates new and promising treatment and monitoring and
measurement technologies for cleanup of hazardous waste sites. The program was
created to encourage the development and routine use of innovative treatment
technologies. As a result, the SITE Program provides environmental decision-
makers with data on new, viable treatment technologies that may have performance
or cost advantages compared to traditional treatment technologies.
This document, prepared between June 1993 and October 1993, was intended as a
reference guide (EPA/540/R-93/526) for those interested in technologies under the
SITE Demonstration, Emerging Technology, and Monitoring and Measurement
Technologies Programs. The two–page profiles, which are organized into two
sections (completed and ongoing projects) for each program, are presented in
alphabetical order by developer name. Each technology profile contains:
· A technology developer and process name.
· A technology description, including a schematic diagram or photograph of the

process.
· A discussion of waste applicability.
· A project status report.
· EPA project manager and technology developer contacts.
· A schematic diagram or photograph of the process.
The profiles also include summaries of demonstration results if available. The

technology description and waste applicability sections are written by the developer.
EPA prepared the status and demonstration results sections.
Reference tables for SITE Program participants precede the sections and contain
EPA and developer contacts. The tables present both waste and media categories.
The waste categories include specific chemicals or chemical groups. The following
media categories are considered: air/gases, groundwater/liquids, leachate, sediment,
sludge, soil, solid debris, and wastewater.
E-4
? E.6 TECHNOLOGY CATALOGUE (FIRST EDITION, FEBRUARY 1994)

The DOE Technology Catalogue features technologies successfully demonstrated in
the field and sufficiently mature to be used in the near future. Technologies to
address the following are presented in the catalogue:
· Buried waste.
· Mixed waste landfill.
· Underground storage tank (UST).
· Volatile organic compound (VOC) contamination in arid soil.
· VOC contamination in non-arid soil.
Several methodologies were employed to select and prepare technology profiles.

Factors affecting the selection of technologies included the availability and quality
of technical information and the maturity of the techno logy. The primary source of
information for the catalogue was the ProTech Prospective Technology Database
developed by Battelle Seattle Research Center for DOE. ProTech is a prototype
electronic system including innovative technologies that are part of i ntegrated
demonstrations. Additional sources of information included technical task plans,
conference proceedings, technical journals, environmental permit applications, and
data supplied by principal investigators.
Technology entries are each two to three pages long and include the following areas:
· Technology title and description.

· Technical performance and cost data.
· Projected near-term performance (1 to 3 years).
· Applicable waste types and forms.
· Development status.
· Key regulatory considerations regarding the application of the technology.
· Potential non -DOE applications.
· Baseline comparison technology.
· Intellectual property rights.
· Points-of-contact (POCs) and references for more information.
A summary of the technologies presented in this document, organized by

contaminant applicability, is presented in Appendix B.
? E.7 REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES SCREENING MATRIX

AND REFERENCE GUIDE (VERSION I, JULY 1993)
This U.S. Air Force (USAF)/EPA document (EPA/542/B -93/005) provides
information to help site RPMs narrow the field of remediation alternatives and
identify potentially applicable technologies for more detailed assessment prior to
remedy selection.
Forty-eight technologies, includ ing in situ and ex situ biological, thermal, and
physical/chemical processes, are included. In addition to treatment technologies,
processes designed to be used primarily for containment, waste separation, and
enhanced recovery have been included to provide a broad range of remedial options.
E-5
The technologies presented in the matrix are evaluated in relation to 13 factors that
address specific cost, performance, and technical, developmental, and institutional
issues. These screening factors were chosen to assist RPMs in identifying
applicable technologies for media and contaminants of concern at their sites.
This document was developed with extensive input from technical experts, including
professionals representing all segments of the remediation community, site
remediation technology researchers, technology developers, and technology users
from federal agencies, state governments, universities, and the private sector.
More than 30 experts participated in an intensive workshop on 2-3 March 1993, at

Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida. Based on their collective experience and expertise,
they selected appropriate technologies and processes to be included in the matrix,
identified the contaminant groups addressed by each technology, and developed the
list of factors against which the technologies were evaluated. Workshop participants
then separated into three small groups and focused on the technologies in their
individual areas of specialization (biological processes, thermal processes, and
physical/chemical processes) to develop the ratings for each of the technologies
shown in the matrix. Each technical expert had the opportunity to review draft
documents independently and provide written comments.
Two appendices provide additional information. Appendix A contains a list of

reference materials, including field demonstration reports and case studies, that
RPMs may wish to consult for more detailed inform ation about various
technologies. Appendix B lists examples of contaminants included in each
contaminant group used in the matrix.
? E.8 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY DESIGN, PERFORMANCE, AND COST

STUDY (JULY 1992)
The purpose
engineers andofproject
this USAF studyonwas
managers thetostate-of-the-art
provide a technical reference remedial
for established for USAF
technologies likely to be used at USAF installations. For purposes of this report,
established technologi es were defined as those involved in more than 100
remediation projects so that information about design, performance, and cost would
be available for a variety of environmental conditions. The technologies reviewed in
this study included bioremediation, air stripping, vacuum extraction, thermal
treatment, carbon adsorption, stabilization and solidification, and contaminant
recovery and separation.
This independent source of information supports the review of USAF contractor

activities, including reviews of feasibility studies identifying a preferred remedial
strategy, cost estimates and proposals for site remediation, and designs for remedial
equipment and systems.
A second purpose of this study was to obtain information from vendors about their
experience in selecting remedial technologies and developing strategies for their
implementation. Such information provides additional substance on which USAF
engineers can base decisions for remedial actions at USAF sites.
More than 200 vendors were contacted for information. Site visits were conducted
with 35 vendors who had extensive experience with at least one of the remedial
technologies in order to elicit detailed information on equipment design,
performance, cost, and technology selection and implementation.
E-6
? E.9 TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES APPLICATIONS MATRIX FOR BASE

CLOSURE ACTIVITIES (NOVEMBER 1993)
The Treatment
prepared Technologieseffort
as a collaborative Applications Matrix forofBase
by representatives Closure
the USAF Activities
Center for was
Environmental Excellence; USACE; U.S. Navy, WESTDIV; DOE; EPA, Region
IX; California State Water Resources Control Board; and the Department of Toxic
Substances Control.
A result of a 23-25 June 1992 base closure meeting in Sacramento, California, was
a recommendation to develop a means for the transfer of treatment technology
information currently available and applicable to Installation Restoration Program
(IRP) sites at federal facilities. The California Military Base Closure
Environmental Committee addressed this issue by forming a Process Action Team
(PAT) to identify and evaluate (1) existing data regarding contaminant problems
common to base closure facilities and (2) treatment technologies associated with
those problems that have proven effective. The matrix was developed by the PAT to
facilitate identification of potentially applicable treatment technologies that should
be considered for hazardous waste site cleanup.
The matrix identifies the major categories of contaminants and contaminated media
found at these sites and lists the treatment technologies that may be applicable. In
addition to listing the technologies for each of the contaminant types, the matrix
provides information on each technology, in cluding advantages, technology
restrictions, California sites where the technology is used, contacts with extensive
knowledge of the technology, general comments, and references. Supporting
documentation also includes a description of typical problem areas and the
contaminants found at these sites. Comments on advantages and restrictions for
each technology are noted in the matrix by references to the attached sections listing
technology advantages and restrictions.
? E.10 EPA/NAVY CERCLA REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGY GUIDE

(NOVEMBER 1993)
The EPA/Navy
engineering CERCLA
bulletins Remedial
produced ActionTechnical
by EPA's Technology Guide
Support is a collection
Branch of (1)
in Cincinnati,
Ohio, and (2) remedial action technical data sheets produced by the Naval Energy
and Environmental Support Activity (NEESA) in Port Hueneme, California. These
documents comprehensively summarize the latest information obtainable on many of
the best available remedial technologies. The intent is to convey information (based
on previous applications) to help RPMs, engineers in charge, on-scene coordinators,
Navy resident officers in charge of construction, and contractors decide if a
technology should be used at a hazardous waste site and, if so, what are the relevant
design, implementation, and cost considerations. Addenda will be issued
periodically to update the original bulletins and technical data sheets, and other
technologies may be added.
E-7
TABLE OFAPPENDIX
CONTENTSE
Section Title Page
E.1 INSTALLATION RESTORATION AND HAZARDOUS WASTE

CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES E-1
E.2 SYNOPSES OF FEDERAL DEMONSTRATIONS OF INNOVATIVE

SITE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES E-2
E.3 ACCESSING FEDERAL DATA BASES FOR CONTAMINATED SITE

CLEANUP TECHNOLOGIES E-3
E.4 FEDERAL PUBLICATIONS ON ALTERNATIVE AND INNOVATIVE

TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION AND
SITE REMEDIATION E-3
E.5 THE SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION

(SITE) PROGRAM: TECHNOLOGY PROFILES E-4
E.6 TECHNOLOGY CATALOGUE E-4
E.7 REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES SCREENING MATRIX AND

REFERENCE GUIDE E-5
E.8 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY DESIGN, PERFORMANCE, AND

COST STUDY E-6
E.9 TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES APPLICATIONS MATRIX FOR

BASE CLOSURE ACTIVITIES E-7
E.10 EPA/NAVY CLEAN REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGY GUIDE E-7
E-i
FOLD OUT MATRIX
Coming from Graphics

ATTACHMENT 1
Treatment Technologies
Screening Matrix
ATTACHMENT 2
Remediation Technology Application
and Cost Guide
Section 6
INDEX
air sparging 2-9, 2-22, 2-25, 3-8, 3-9, 3-60, 3-40, 3-45, 3-47, 4-61, 4-63, 4-64, 4-7, 4-9,
3-64, 3-65, 3-66, 3-71, 3-38, 3-42, 3-43, 4-14, 4-19, 4-43, 4-44, 4-47, 4-49, 4-51,
3-44, 3-45, 3-50, 4-24, 4-129, 4-130, 4-137, 4-52, 4-53, 4-68, 4-121, 4-122, 4-125, 4-129,
4-138, 4-141, 4-145, 4-171, A-6 4-130, 4-133, 4-134, 4-142, 4-145, 4-157,
4-160, 4-174, 4-203, A-4, A-5, A-6, B-3, B-6,
air stripping 2-9, 2-12, 2-15, 2-22, 2-26, B-12, D-4, D-6
3-1, 3-9, 3-18, 3-21, 3-27, 3-56, 3-65, 3-78,
3-44, 3-50, 3-51, 3-53, 4-33, 4-34, 4-87, bioventing 2-2, 2-5, 2-9, 2-12, 2-15, 2-19,
4-134, 4-141, 4-142, 4-152, 4-154, 4-169, 2-22, 2-24, 2-25, 3-3, 3-6, 3-13, 3-16, 3-60,
4-177, 4-178, 4-179, 4-180, 4-193, 4-196, 3-63, 3-45, 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10,
4-197, 4-220, 4-221, 4-222, B-3, B-10, D-6 4-129, 4-130, 4-131, 4-141, 4-145, A-6, D-4
biodegradation 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, 2-9, 2-10, burn pits 2-8, 2-14, 2-21, 2-27
2-12, 2-15, 2-17, 2-19, 2-20, 2-22, 2-23,
2-24, 2-25, 2-26, 2-36, 2-40, 2-41, 3-1, 3-6, carbon adsorption 2-6, 2-12, 2-13, 2-20,
3-8, 3-10, 3-11, 3-12, 3-13, 3-15, 3-16, 3-22, 2-22, 2-25, 2-26, 2-36, 3-1, 3-9, 3-10, 3-18,
3-23, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-35, 3-56, 3-58, 3-19, 3-34, 3-71, 3-79, 3-44, 3-50, 3-52,
3-59, 3-61, 3-62, 3-66, 3-67, 3-37, 3-39, 3-55, 3-57, 3-60, 4-63, 4-98, 4-134, 4-175,
3-41, 3-43, 3-44, 3-45, 3-50, 3-55, 4-61, 4-189, 4-190, 4-191, 4-197, 4-198, 4-216,
4-62, 4-61, 4-63, 4-64, 4-65, 4-5, 4-7, 4-8, 4-223, D-6
4-9, 4-11, 4-13, 4-14, 4-24, 4-25, 4-32, 4-40, catalytic oxidation 2-13, 3-22, 3-23, 3-72,
4-43, 4-45, 4-48, 4-51, 4-52, 4-53, 4-63, 3-55, 3-57, 3-58, 3-59, 4-180, 4-198, 4-219,
4-70, 4-117, 4-119, 4-120, 4-122, 4-125, 4-220, 4-221, 4-222, B-6
4-126, 4-127, 4-133, 4-141, 4-174, 4-197,
4-201, 4-202, 4-203, B-12, C-16 CERCLA 1-3, 1-8, 2-2, 3-56, 4-25, 4-29,
4-37, 4-48, 4-79, 4-83, 4-114, 4-117, 4-124,
biofiltration 2-9, 3-10, 3-34, 3-79, 3-57, 4-127, 4-131, 4-135, 4-201, E-1, D-7
3-58, 4-207
chemical reduction/oxidation 2-6, 2-22,
biological treatment 1-5, 2-4, 2-6, 2-9, 2-28, 3-36, 4-55
2-15, 2-19, 2-22, 2-24, 2-36, 2-39, 2-40,
2-41, 3-2, 3-3, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-11, 3-13, co-metabolic processes 3-8, 3-60, 3-38,
3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 3-17, 3-29, 3-31, 3-32, 3-40, 3-41, 4-121
3-33, 3-34, 3-35, 3-36, 3-58, 3-60, 3-61, composting 2-9, 2-15, 2-19, 2-22, 2-24,
3-62, 3-64, 3-66, 3-68, 3-69, 3-70, 3-71, 2-36, 2-40, 2-41, 3-7, 3-31, 3-33, 3-34, 4-11,
3-46, 3-58, 4-64, 4-43, 4-45, 4-46, 4-51, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-46, D-4
4-153, 4-175, 4-207, A-4
containment 2-9, 2-15, 2-22, 2-29, 2-36,
bioreactors 2-9, 2-15, 2-22, 2-36, 2-40, 3-9, 3-1, 3-49, 3-54, 3-78, 3-59, 4-145, 4-161,
3-34, 3-68, 3-70, 3-49, 3-50, 4-51, 4-122, 4-167, 4-168, 4-211, B-2, B-4, D-4, D-6
4-161, 4-173, 4-174
controlled solid phase biological treatment
bioremediation 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-10, 2-17, 3-7, 3-31, 4-43, 4-46
2-18, 2-19, 2-23, 2-25, 2-39, 3-9, 3-11, 3-12,
3-13, 3-14, 3-15, 3-21, 3-24, 3-29, 3-30,
3-31, 3-32, 3-33, 3-34, 3-58, 3-59, 3-60,
3-61, 3-62, 3-66, 3-67, 3-70, 3-38, 3-39,
MK01\RPT:02281012.009 \compgde.s6 10/31/00
6-1
destruction 2-1, 2-19, 2-20, 2-25, 2-43, 3-1, 4-84, 4-87, 4-88, 4-95, 4-96, 4-99, 4-100,
3-10, 3-11, 3-23, 3-29, 3-36, 3-48, 3-51, 4-105, 4-107, 4-108, 4-110, 4-111, 4-115,
3-53, 3-58, 3-61, 3-62, 3-66, 3-70, 3-71, 4-118, 4-119, 4-122, 4-124, 4-134, 4-147,
3-73, 3-74, 3-79, 3-80, 3-33, 3-34, 3-36, 4-151, 4-152, 4-154, 4-155, 4-159, 4-160,
3-54, 3-55, 4-12, 4-65, 4-90, 4-93, 4-97, 4-167, 4-171, 4-175, 4-176, 4-179, 4-180,
4-109, 4-110, 4-174, 4-175, 4-197, 4-198, 4-182, 4-183, 4-187, 4-191, 4-192, 4-195,
4-199, 4-212, 4-220, 4-221, B-2, B-3, B-4, 4-199, 4-200, 4-201, 4-209, 4-216, 4-221,
B-6, B-9, C-9, C-35, C-43 4-224, 4-225, A-1, A-2, A-4, B-1, B-6, B-7,
B-8, B-9, B-10, B-11, B-12, B-13, C-1, C-4,
directional wells 3-9, 3-64, 3-44, 3-45, C-7, C-8, C-9, C-10, C-12, C-13, C-14,
4-141 C-24, C-28, C-29, C-37, C-38, C-39, C-44,
DOD 1-2, 1-4, 1-6, 2-40, 2-42, 3-33, 4-102, C-46, C-52, C-55, C-57, C-59, E-1, E-2,
4-122, B-12, C-1, C-5, C-6, C-18, C-19, D-2, D-3, D-4, D-5, D-6, D-7, D-i, 3-78
C-20, C-23, C-53, D-2, D-3 ex situ soil vapor extraction 4-73
DOE 1-2, 1-3, 1-7, 3-15, 3-16, 3-21, 3-23, ex situ solidification/stabilization 4-77, 4-78
3-26, 3-27, 3-42, 3-43, 3-44, 3-52, 3-56,
3-57, 3-61, 3-62, 3-63, 3-65, 3-70, 3-72, ex situ vitrification 3-75, 3-36, 4-109, 4-110
3-74, 3-75, 3-78, 3-80, 4-64, 4-65, 4-9, 4-10,
4-17, 4-19, 4-27, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, excavation and off-site disposal 2-32, 2-36,
4-37, 4-39, 4-78, 4-79, 4-80, 4-102, 4-110, 3-8, 3-54, 3-36, 3-37, 4-113, 4-114
4-111, 4-114, 4-115, 4-122, 4-123, 4-124, explosives 1-4, 2-1, 2-13, 2-14, 2-20, 2-34,
4-131, 4-138, 4-142, 4-143, 4-144, 4-155, 2-36, 2-37, 2-38, 2-39, 2-40, 2-41, 2-42,
4-161, 4-162, 4-163, 4-164, 4-170, 4-174, 2-43, 2-44, 2-45, 3-8, 3-52, 3-32, 3-33, 3-34,
4-175, 4-176, 4-180, 4-183, 4-186, 4-187, 3-52, 3-53, 4-61, 4-12, 4-13, 4-15, 4-40,
4-192, 4-212, 4-214, 4-216, 4-217, 4-225, 4-41, 4-45, 4-51, 4-89, 4-90, 4-94, 4-95,
B-1, B-11, D-ii, C-1, C-3, C-6, C-8, C-9, 4-101, 4-102, 4-103, 4-189, 4-190, 4-192,
C-10, C-21, C-22, C-24, C-25, C-26, C-27, 4-200
C-34, C-35, C-36, C-39, C-41, C-42, C-47,
C-48, E-1, D-2, D-3, D-5, D-7 extraction 2-1, 2-4, 2-5, 2-7, 2-9, 2-11,
2-12, 2-14, 2-15, 2-22, 2-25, 2-26, 2-28,
DOI 1-2, 1-8, 3-16, 3-52, 3-55, 3-57, 3-62, 2-33, 2-34, 2-36, 2-43, 2-44, 3-1, 3-6, 3-7,
3-69, 3-75, 3-78, C-1, D-2, D-3 3-9, 3-16, 3-17, 3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 3-22, 3-23,
DOT 4-114 3-24, 3-25, 3-27, 3-28, 3-36, 3-37, 3-38,
3-39, 3-40, 3-42, 3-43, 3-45, 3-56, 3-57,
dual phase extraction 2-9, 2-22, 3-9, 3-64, 3-63, 3-64, 3-65, 3-72, 3-73, 3-29, 3-30,
3-44, 3-45, 4-145, 4-146 3-31, 3-44, 3-45, 3-46, 3-47, 3-49, 3-59,
3-60, 4-5, 4-8, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19,
EPA 1-2, 1-3, 1-5, 2-1, 2-2, 2-7, 2-8, 2-11, 4-21, 4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-31, 4-33,
2-33, 2-43, 3-3, 3-4, 3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 3-18, 4-47, 4-64, 4-69, 4-73, 4-74, 4-81, 4-82,
3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 3-22, 3-23, 3-24, 3-26, 4-83, 4-137, 4-142, 4-145, 4-146, 4-150,
3-27, 3-28, 3-32, 3-34, 3-35, 3-37, 3-38, 4-152, 4-153, 4-154, 4-157, 4-160, 4-169,
3-39, 3-40, 3-41, 3-42, 3-43, 3-44, 3-45, 4-181, 4-212, 4-215, 4-220, 4-222, A-6, A-7,
3-46, 3-47, 3-49, 3-50, 3-51, 3-52, 3-53, A-8, B-3, B-6, B-7, B-8, B-10, B-12, C-16,
3-55, 3-56, 3-57, 3-61, 3-63, 3-65, 3-69, C-35, D-6
3-70, 3-72, 3-73, 3-74, 3-75, 3-77, 3-78,
3-80, 3-56, 4-64, 4-65, 4-6, 4-10, 4-13, 4-14, filtration 2-7, 2-28, 2-33, 2-34, 2-36, 3-9,
4-15, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-21, 4-22, 4-25, 3-10, 3-26, 3-45, 3-69, 3-71, 3-72, 3-74,
4-26, 4-27, 4-28, 4-29, 4-30, 4-31, 4-33, 3-77, 3-50, 3-51, 3-53, 3-54, 4-181, 4-182,
4-34, 4-35, 4-37, 4-39, 4-42, 4-47, 4-48, 4-183, 4-193, 4-194, 4-195, 4-216, B-12,
4-49, 4-50, 4-53, 4-54, 4-56, 4-57, 4-59, C-16
4-60, 4-61, 4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-69, 4-70,
4-71, 4-74, 4-78, 4-79, 4-80, 4-82, 4-83,
MK01\RPT:02281012.009 \compgde.s6 10/31/00
6-2
INDEX
free product recovery 2-3, 2-15, 2-22, 2-26, innovative 1-3, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 2-2, 2-33, 3-3,
3-9, 3-64, 3-44, 3-46, 4-130, 4-149, 4-150, 3-16, 3-24, 3-28, 3-35, 3-47, 3-53, 3-57,
4-151 3-63, 3-65, 3-70, 3-75, 3-78, 3-80, 4-56,
4-65, 4-69, 4-83, 4-87, 4-122, 4-154, 4-158,
fuels 1-4, 2-1, 2-6, 2-8, 2-14, 2-21, 2-22, 4-175, 4-182, 4-187, 4-191, 4-195, 4-198,
2-23, 2-24, 2-25, 2-26, 3-15, 3-22, 3-23, 4-199, A-1, A-2, A-4, B-1, B-13, C-4, C-11,
3-35, 3-51, 3-57, 3-62, 3-78, 3-31, 3-34, C-13, C-14, C-16, C-26, C-35, E-1, D-2,
3-41, 3-42, 3-43, 3-44, 3-45, 3-46, 3-49, D-3, D-4, D-5, D-i
3-52, 3-59, 4-20, 4-24, 4-32, 4-68, 4-85,
4-98, 4-121, 4-125, 4-129, 4-133, 4-137, inorganics 1-4, 2-1, 2-4, 2-6, 2-27, 2-28,
4-145, 4-149, 4-153, 4-166, 4-169, 4-190 2-29, 2-32, 2-33, 3-25, 3-26, 3-46, 3-48,
3-56, 3-57, 3-72, 3-75, 3-80, 3-29, 3-30,
GAC 2-45, 3-51, 3-58, 4-191, 4-192, 4-207, 3-35, 3-36, 3-38, 3-47, 3-49, 3-52, 3-57,
4-223, 4-224 4-61, 4-7, 4-20, 4-28, 4-30, 4-35, 4-36, 4-55,
glycolate dehalogenation 3-7, 4-64, 4-65 4-68, 4-77, 4-79, 4-81, 4-106, 4-109, 4-118,
4-119, 4-161, 4-169, 4-202, B-4, B-10, B-11,
hazardous waste 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 2-19, 2-25, B-12, B-13
2-32, 3-30, 3-33, 3-37, 3-56, 4-13, 4-14,
4-21, 4-25, 4-30, 4-56, 4-74, 4-78, 4-81, ion exchange 2-4, 2-6, 2-7, 2-28, 2-33, 2-34,
4-93, 4-94, 4-95, 4-99, 4-114, 4-115, 4-117, 3-1, 3-9, 3-42, 3-55, 3-71, 3-72, 3-77, 3-50,
4-158, 4-167, 4-168, 4-201, 4-213, 4-223, 3-52, 4-20, 4-185, 4-186, 4-187, B-2, B-4
B-4, D-ii, C-2, C-4, C-5, C-7, C-8, C-11, lagoons 2-8, 2-14, 2-27, 2-34, 2-39, 2-45
C-13, C-14, C-16, C-21, C-23, C-24, C-28,
C-29, C-51, E-1, E-2, D-2, D-4, D-7, D-i land disposal restrictions 2-20, 2-33, 3-36,
3-37, 4-113, 4-114
high temperature thermal desorption 3-48,
3-31, 4-85 landfarming 2-9, 2-15, 2-19, 2-22, 2-24,
2-36, 3-7, 3-31, 4-47, 4-49
hot gas decontamination 2-36, 3-8, 3-48,
3-31, 3-32, 4-89, 4-90 landfills 2-8, 2-14, 2-21, 2-27, 2-34, 3-56
hot water or steam flushing/stripping 3-9, liquid phase carbon adsorption 2-13, 2-20,
3-64, 3-44, 3-46, 4-153, 4-154 2-22, 2-26, 2-36, 3-9, 3-71, 3-50, 3-52,
4-189, 4-190
hydrofracturing 3-9, 3-64, 3-44, 3-47,
4-157 LNAPL 2-3, 2-19, 2-24, 4-8
in situ soil vapor extraction 4-23 low temperature thermal desorption 2-24,
2-25, 3-48, 3-50, 3-31, 3-33, 3-34, 4-97
in situ vitrification 2-4, 2-9, 2-15, 2-22,
3-25, 3-26, 4-35, 4-37, B-2, B-3, B-4 mixed waste 2-8, 2-14, 2-27, 2-32, 2-33,
3-56, 3-37, 4-78, 4-113, 4-142, B-2, D-5
incineration 2-9, 2-10, 2-11, 2-12, 2-15,
2-17, 2-19, 2-22, 2-23, 2-24, 2-25, 2-36, natural attenuation 2-3, 2-9, 2-15, 2-22,
2-39, 2-40, 2-41, 2-42, 3-8, 3-34, 3-35, 3-41, 3-8, 3-10, 3-54, 3-76, 3-37, 3-38, 3-55, 3-56,
3-42, 3-48, 3-52, 3-65, 3-30, 3-31, 3-33, 4-117, 4-118, 4-119, 4-120, 4-201, 4-202,
4-64, 4-68, 4-78, 4-81, 4-85, 4-87, 4-93, 4-203
4-94, 4-95, 4-96, A-9, B-6, D-4
nitrate enhancement 2-9, 2-15, 2-22, 3-8,
3-60, 3-38, 3-41, 3-42, 4-125, 4-127
NPL 4-50
open burn 2-36, 2-43, 3-8, 3-48, 3-34, 4-12,
4-101
open detonation 2-43, 3-8, 3-48, 3-31, 3-34,
4-12, 4-101, 4-102
MK01\RPT:02281012.009 \compgde.s6 10/31/00
6-3
oxygen enhancement with air sparging 3-8, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 3-34, 3-35, 3-51, 3-54,
3-42, 4-129, 4-130 4-20, 4-67, 4-70, 4-82, 4-85, 4-88, 4-97,
4-106, 4-174, 4-181, 4-194, 4-215, 4-216,
oxygen enhancement with hydrogen A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10, B-3, B-4, D-6
peroxide 3-8, 3-43, 4-133
SITE 1-3, 3-24, 3-34, 3-35, 3-45, 3-46,
passive treatment walls 2-9, 2-15, 2-22, 3-53, 3-75, 4-17, 4-29, 4-37, 4-110, 4-154,
2-28, 2-36, 3-9, 3-64, 3-44, 3-47, 3-48, 4-176, 4-183, 4-209, E-1, D-4, D-5
4-161, 4-162
slurry phase biological treatment 2-19, 3-7,
pesticides 2-16, 2-19, 3-11, 3-29, 3-43, 3-31, 4-51
3-45, 3-51, 3-58, 3-66, 3-74, 3-77, 3-29,
3-31, 3-34, 3-35, 3-37, 3-39, 3-41, 3-42, slurry walls 2-9, 2-15, 2-22, 2-28, 2-36, 3-1,
3-43, 3-49, 3-50, 3-52, 3-56, 4-61, 4-6, 4-20, 3-9, 3-64, 3-44, 3-48, 4-165, 4-166
4-28, 4-32, 4-39, 4-45, 4-48, 4-51, 4-55,
4-59, 4-64, 4-68, 4-77, 4-85, 4-106, 4-118, soil flushing 2-4, 2-5, 2-9, 2-15, 2-22, 2-28,
4-119, 4-121, 4-125, 4-129, 4-133, 4-169, 3-1, 3-6, 3-17, 3-32, 3-45, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21,
4-174, 4-190, 4-201, B-7, B-8, B-10, B-11, 4-141, A-8, C-16
B-12, B-13 soil washing 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-9, 2-15, 2-22,
pneumatic fracturing 3-6, 3-17, 3-24, 4-15, 2-28, 2-36, 2-44, 3-1, 3-7, 3-32, 3-35, 3-36,
4-17, 4-18, A-7, B-6 3-37, 3-42, 3-43, 3-44, 3-45, 3-56, 3-73,
3-30, 4-53, 4-57, 4-67, 4-68, 4-69, 4-70,
precipitation 2-7, 2-28, 2-30, 2-31, 2-33, 4-81, A-8, B-6, B-7, D-2, D-3, D-4
2-34, 3-10, 3-42, 3-45, 3-62, 3-69, 3-71,
3-72, 3-74, 3-77, 3-50, 3-53, 4-28, 4-48, solidification/stabilization 1-6, 2-4, 2-15,
4-63, 4-179, 4-193, 4-194, 4-195, 4-196, B-8 2-28, 2-31, 2-32, 2-33, 3-17, 3-45, 3-46,
3-75, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 4-27, 4-30, 4-68,
presumptive remedies 1-1, 1-2, 2-2, 2-11 4-77, 4-78, 4-79, 4-81, 4-85, A-8
pyrolysis 2-9, 2-15, 2-22, 3-8, 3-48, 3-31, solvent extraction 2-9, 2-15, 2-22, 2-36,
3-35, 3-36, 4-35, 4-105, 4-106, 4-107, A-9, 2-43, 2-44, 3-1, 3-7, 3-36, 3-38, 3-39, 3-43,
A-10 3-45, 3-30, 3-31, 4-81, 4-82, 4-83, A-8, B-7,
B-8, B-10
radioactive 2-1, 2-8, 2-27, 2-29, 2-32, 2-33,
3-43, 3-56, 3-32, 3-35, 3-36, 3-52, 3-53, solvents 2-4, 2-19, 3-11, 3-15, 3-27, 3-29,
4-20, 4-37, 4-70, 4-78, 4-85, 4-106, 4-110, 3-40, 3-45, 3-51, 3-56, 3-58, 3-62, 3-66,
4-113, 4-114, 4-186, 4-191, 4-193, B-4, B-7, 3-78, 3-30, 3-39, 3-41, 3-54, 4-61, 4-6, 4-10,
B-13, C-10, C-48 4-48, 4-51, 4-81, 4-121, 4-122, 4-131, 4-160,
4-190, 4-197, 4-200, 4-211, 4-223, B-3, B-8,
radionuclides 2-27, 2-31, 2-32, 2-33, 3-26, B-10
3-42, 3-43, 3-44, 3-52, 3-55, 3-29, 3-36,
3-51, 4-28, 4-36, 4-67, 4-77, 4-78, 4-109, Superfund 1-2, 1-3, 1-7, 2-8, 2-11, 3-22,
4-174, 4-183, 4-185, B-2, B-4, B-6, B-8, B-9 3-28, 3-41, 3-44, 3-46, 3-51, 3-52, 3-53,
3-55, 3-69, 3-73, 3-77, 3-56, 4-63, 4-21,
RCRA 1-2, 2-19, 2-27, 2-29, 3-40, 3-53, 4-27, 4-46, 4-53, 4-56, 4-60, 4-61, 4-64,
4-29, 4-33, 4-79, 4-94, 4-102, 4-114, 4-127, 4-68, 4-70, 4-82, 4-83, 4-84, 4-87, 4-88,
C-13, C-14, C-16 4-94, 4-95, 4-106, 4-108, 4-110, 4-115,
RI/FS 1-1, 1-4, 1-5, 2-2 4-117, 4-119, 4-154, 4-167, 4-168, 4-175,
4-176, 4-180, 4-183, 4-191, 4-192, 4-200,
RPM 1-2, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-8, 3-24 4-201, B-1, B-6, B-7, B-8, B-9, B-11, B-12,
separation 2-4, 2-9, 2-25, 2-31, 2-34, 2-44, B-13, D-ii, C-2, C-5, C-7, C-8, C-11, C-14,
3-1, 3-10, 3-17, 3-35, 3-36, 3-39, 3-42, 3-43, C-16, C-28, C-29, C-37, E-1, D-4, D-i
3-44, 3-45, 3-46, 3-48, 3-53, 3-55, 3-57, surface impoundments 2-8, 2-14, 2-21,
3-64, 3-70, 3-71, 3-74, 3-75, 3-77, 3-79, 2-27
MK01\RPT:02281012.009 \compgde.s6 10/31/00
6-4
INDEX
SVOCs 1-4, 2-1, 2-14, 2-16, 2-17, 2-19, VOCs 1-4, 2-1, 2-4, 2-7, 2-8, 2-10, 2-11,
2-20, 2-23, 2-24, 2-37, 3-24, 3-27, 3-28, 2-12, 2-13, 2-16, 2-17, 2-23, 3-9, 3-10, 3-18,
3-45, 3-50, 3-51, 3-52, 3-53, 3-29, 3-31, 3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 3-22, 3-24, 3-27, 3-28,
3-34, 3-35, 3-37, 3-41, 3-42, 3-43, 3-46, 3-40, 3-45, 3-46, 3-49, 3-50, 3-51, 3-52,
3-47, 3-49, 3-50, 3-52, 3-56, 3-59, 4-20, 3-53, 3-65, 3-72, 3-73, 3-74, 3-79, 3-80,
4-28, 4-32, 4-36, 4-45, 4-55, 4-59, 4-64, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-34, 3-37, 3-41, 3-42,
4-68, 4-77, 4-85, 4-98, 4-100, 4-106, 4-118, 3-43, 3-44, 3-45, 3-47, 3-49, 3-50, 3-51,
4-121, 4-125, 4-129, 4-133, 4-149, 4-153, 3-52, 3-56, 3-58, 3-59, 3-60, 4-14, 4-20,
4-161, 4-169, 4-174, 4-190, 4-201, 4-211, 4-24, 4-27, 4-28, 4-32, 4-36, 4-40, 4-45,
4-220, B-3, B-6, B-7, B-8, B-10, B-11, B-12, 4-48, 4-55, 4-59, 4-64, 4-68, 4-73, 4-77,
B-13 4-81, 4-85, 4-98, 4-100, 4-118, 4-121, 4-123,
4-125, 4-129, 4-133, 4-137, 4-142, 4-145,
thermal oxidation 2-13, 2-14, 3-21, 3-23, 4-153, 4-161, 4-169, 4-178, 4-180, 4-190,
3-79, 3-57, 3-59, 4-215, 4-219, 4-220 4-196, 4-201, 4-207, 4-209, 4-211, 4-212,
thermally enhanced soil vapor extraction 4-215, 4-219, 4-220, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-6,
3-6, 4-31 B-7, B-8, B-10, B-11, B-12, B-13
TSCA 3-53, 4-94, 4-135 white rot fungus 2-36, 2-40, 2-41, 3-6,
3-13, 4-11, 4-12, 4-13, 4-14
U.S. Navy 1-3, 3-61, 3-73, E-1, D-3, D-7
widely/commonly used 2-1
USACE 3-33, 3-72, 3-75, 4-15, 4-50, 4-111,
4-164, 4-167, 4-195, 4-200, C-18, C-24, D-7
USAEC 1-3, 2-38, 2-42, 2-43, 3-75, 4-65,
4-10, 4-13, 4-15, 4-19, 4-22, 4-27, 4-28,
4-31, 4-35, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-48,
4-50, 4-54, 4-57, 4-61, 4-66, 4-71, 4-75,
4-80, 4-84, 4-88, 4-91, 4-96, 4-100, 4-103,
4-108, 4-111, 4-115, 4-120, 4-124, 4-127,
4-131, 4-135, 4-139, 4-144, 4-147, 4-152,
4-155, 4-160, 4-164, 4-168, 4-171, 4-176,
4-180, 4-183, 4-187, 4-192, 4-196, 4-200,
4-204, 4-209, 4-214, 4-217, 4-222, 4-224,
4-225, C-7, C-30, C-31, E-1, D-3
USAF 1-3, 2-1, 3-4, 3-13, 3-30, 3-59, 3-67,
3-40, 3-56, 4-6, 4-19, 4-21, 4-27, 4-28,
4-102, 4-118, 4-119, 4-120, 4-127, 4-134,
4-144, 4-152, 4-162, 4-164, 4-176, 4-179,
4-180, 4-201, 4-204, 4-222, E-1, D-3, D-6,
D-7
USTs 3-78, 4-151, 4-152
UV oxidation 2-9, 2-15, 2-20, 2-22, 2-36,
2-45, 3-10, 3-71, 3-73, 3-74, 3-50, 3-54,
4-197
vacuum vapor extraction 2-9, 2-15, 2-22,
2-28, 3-9, 3-64, 3-44, 3-49, 3-60, 4-169
vapor phase carbon adsorption 3-10, 3-19,
3-79, 3-57, 3-60
VISITT 1-6, 1-7, A-1, A-2, A-4
MK01\RPT:02281012.009 \compgde.s6 10/31/00
6-5

Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

SCREENING MATRIX AND

DOD Environmental Technology

U.S. government agencies and their contractors may reproduce this

The Environmental Technology Transfer Committee (ETTC) was

One of the distinctive attributes of environmental technology is that the

The selection and use of innovative technologies to clean up hazardous

DANIEL F. UYESUGI WALTER W. KOVALICK, JR., Ph.D.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

Peter J. Marks, Walter J. Wujcik, Amy F. Loncar

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev 2-89)

Mr. Mark Berscheid Mr. James E. Cook

Research Center Washington, DC 20460

Washington, DC 20460 Tyndall AFB, FL 32403

Phone: 513/569-7519 Cincinnati, OH 45268

Section Title Page

1.1 Objectives ........................................................................................................1-1

2 CONTAMINANT PERSPECTIVES ......................................................................2-1

2.1 Presumptive Remedies....................................................................................2-2

Section Title Page

3 TREATMENT PERSPECTIVES ...........................................................................3-1

4 TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY PROFILES ........................................................4-1

Soil, Sediment, and Sludge Treatment Technologies

4.4 Pneumatic Fracturing......................................................................................4-15

Section Title Page

4.5 Soil Flushing ..................................................................................................4-19

Groundwater, Surface Water, and Leachate Treatment Technologies

4.49 Ultraviolet Oxidation ....................................................................................4-197

Section Title Page

4.50 Natural Attenuation ......................................................................................4-201

Air Emissions/Off-Gas Treatment Technologies

5.1 Document Sources............................................................................................5-1

APPENDIX A — VENDOR INFORMATION SYSTEM FOR INNOVATIVE

APPENDIX B — DOE SITE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES BY WASTE

APPENDIX C — FEDERAL DATA BASES AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

APPENDIX D — FACTORS AFFECTING TREATMENT COST AND PERFORMANCE

APPENDIX E — DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE DOCUMENTS

ATTACHMENT 1 — TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES SCREENING MATRIX

ATTACHMENT 2 — REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION AND COST

Figure No. Title Page

1-1 Reduction of Data Needs by Screening and Presumptive Remedies..........................1-1

2-1 Categories of Energetic Materials .........................................................................2-36

3-1 Classification of Remedial Technologies by Function ..............................................3-2

4-1 Typical In Situ Biodegradation System ...................................................................4-1

4-2 Typical Bioventing System .....................................................................................4-5

4-3 Typical White Rot Fungus Biodegradation Process ...............................................4-11

4-4 Typical Pneumatic Fracturing Process ..................................................................4-15

4-5 Typical Soil Flushing System ...............................................................................4-19

4-6 Typical In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction System.......................................................4-23

4-7 Typical Auger/Caisson and Reagent/Injector Head In Situ .......................................... Solidification

4-8 Typical Thermally Enhanced SVE System ............................................................4-31

4-9 Typical In Situ Vitrification System......................................................................4-35

4-10 Typical Windrow Composting Process .................................................................4-39

4-11 Typical Controlled Treatment Unit for Solid-Phase Bioremediation .......................4-43

4-12 Typical Landfarming Treatment Unit....................................................................4-47

4-13 Typical Bioreactor Process...................................................................................4-51

4-14 Typical Chemical Reduction/Oxidation Process ....................................................4-55

4-15 Typical BCD Dehalogenation Process ..................................................................4-59